1

IN THE DISTRICT MUNSIF COURT, SIRKALI

Before : Mr.E.Selvaraj, B.C.A., B.L.,
DISTRICT MUNSIF JUDGE, SIRKALI

2049, Thiruvalluvar Year, Sri Vihari Year, 10th day of Chithirai Month.
Monday the 23rd day of April 2018

Original Suit No.99 / 06 and 113 / 06

O.S. No.99 / 2006

Vijayalakshmi … Plaintiff
-Vs-
1. Vedhaiah Mudaliar (deceased)
2. Padma
3. Kumararaja
4. Natarajan … Defendants

O.S. No.113 / 2006

Kumararaj
represented by his power agent
Natarajan … Plaintiff
-Vs-
1. Vijayalakshmi
2. K.Selvaraj …. Defendants

Basis on the order passed in O.S.No.113/06 dated 30.01.2018 to

conduct the common evidence in two cases. Evidences has been recorded
in two cases commonly in O.S.No.99/06, documents have been marked.
The above said two cases coming on 13.04.2018 before me, for final
hearing in O.S.No.99/2016, on the Plaintiff’s side counsel Mr.A.Selvaraj has
appeared. The first defendant died. On the defendant’s side, defendants 2
to 4, counsel Mr.K.Thiyagarajan has appeared. In O.S. No.113 / 2006, on
the Plaintiff side counsel Mr.K.Thiyagarajan has appeared. On the first
defendant side, counsel Mr.A.Selvaraj has appeared, 2 nd defendant was
called absent set ex parte and upon hearing the arguments on both sides,
 2

documents, evidences, on the both sides and having stood over for
consideration till this day, this Court delivered the following.

Common Judgment

O.S.NO.99/2006:

Suit is filed by the plaintiff to vacate the defendants from the suit
property, to remove the shops in front of the suit property, encroachment
and constructions regarding the suit property and handover the possession
of the suit property to the plaintiff. Regarding the suit property Plaintiff’s
husband had executed a Sale Deed Dated 20.01.1976 to and in favour of
the first defendant is false, forgery, it is not binding on the plaintiff, hence
declare the Sale Deed as null and void and also regarding the suit property
1st defendant executed a Settlement Deed dated 17.09.2005 in favour of
the 3rd defendant is false, forgery it is not binding on the plaintiff, declare
the Settlement as null and void, to collect the arrears of rent of Rs.1200/-
with interest from the defendant, to pay the compensation of Rs.150/-
from the defendants to plaintiff permanent injunction restraining the
defendants, their men, agents, etc, to interfere with the Annadhanam
Charity work for future income from the suit property.

2. O.S.No.113/2006

Plaintiff filed the suit for permanent injunction restraining the

defendants, their men, agents, interfere with the peaceful possession of
the suit property and to pay the cost of the suit.

3. Brief of the plaint in O.S.No.99/2006:

Suit property is situated at Vaitheeswaran Koil West Street in Survey

No.131/3, pan tiled house, backyard Vaal Veechu and Maranthazhai
including, South to North: 41 feet, East to West real plot Otha Vaal Veechu.
Suit property belonged to Veerabhadra Mudaliar. The suit property was
purchased by the Veerabhadra Mudaliar on 21.10.1937 from Ammakannu
Ammal and others and residing and enjoyed the suit property. Other than
 3

the suit property Veerabhadra Mudaliar has having so many properties on

several Villages. When Veerabhadra Mudaliar was alive, he executed a
registered will dated 16.04.1950 regarding his own properties. As per Will,
Veerabhadra Mudaliar’s first wife Angalammai has got “A” schedule
property, 2nd wife has got “B” schedule property, Agoram, S/o.Late
Muthusamy brother of Veerabhadra Mudaliar has got “C” schedule property
and the “E” schedule property was allotted for the charity purpose i.e., in
each and every Karthigai star day Anandhanam will give for 20 poor people
and the “F” schedule property allotted to spend the amount for the
cremation of Veerabhadra Mudaliar and to do the motcha deepam and
other acts. Out of the income derived from the “E” Schedule property to
pay the kist for the property, remaining amount should be spent for
Annandham Charity purpose. To run the charity work, Pavadai Mudaliar,
S/o.Vinaitheertha Mudaliar, Puzhugapettai, Sirkali City, Sirkali Taluk has
been appointed as a trustee, to look after the charity work, after him his
elder male heirs to look after the charity work, if not satisfied by the charity
work of the Pavadai Mudaliar, Alamelu Ammal, second wife of Veerabhadra
Mudaliar shall look after the charity administration. Alameluammal has no
issues, hence she may take adoption of Govindaraju, S/o.Kunju Mudaliar,
Iluppapattu the same has been stated. Veerabhadra Mudaliar died on
04.03.1951. After the death of him, Will come into force the schedule
property shall have been taken by each parties and enjoyed their
respective shares. As per Will Pavadai Mudaliar has taken the “E” schedule
properties, he has done the charity of Annandhanam. Alamelu ammal did
not satisfied the Annandhanam of Charity of Pavadai Mudaliar, as per “E”
schedule properties was taken the custody of Alamelu Ammal from Pavadai
Mudaliar and doing the Annandhana Charity work. Alameluammal has no
issues, as per Will Alamelu Ammal has been taken the adoption of
Govindaraju, S/o.Kunju Mudaliar, Iluppapattu as her son by way of
adoption deed datd 18.04.1951. As per adoption deed Govindaraju as a
legal heir of Alamelu Ammal as per law. When Alamelu Ammal is alive, she
has executed a Will dated 01.09.1964 regarding her own property and also
 4

suit property. Excluding the allotment of Veerabhadra Mudaliar property,

Govindaraju shall enjoy the other properties; Govindaraju shall look after
the Annandhana Charity in the suit property. Alameluammal died 30 years
ago. After her death, Will come into force (Including the suit property)
Govindaraju has taken the property in his custody and doing the
Annadhana Charity in the suit property. Govindaraju is the plaintiff’s
husband. 1st defendant is the brother of plaintiff. Govindaraj resided out
station (Keezaperumpallam) hence he appointed the 1 st defendant as his
agent, to look after the Annadhana Charity in the suit property, regarding
the charity work, oral agreement has been entered with the permission of
Govindaraju 1st defendant residing in the suit property and agreed to pay
the monthly rent of Rs.50/- and doing the Annadhanam Dharmam, 1 st
defendant helped the plaintiff and his husband to do the annadhanam in
the suit property. The said monthly rent of Rs.50/- also spent for
Annadhana Charity, first defendant has paid house tax in the name of
Govindaraju. In this circumstance, Govindaraj died 4 years before filing the
suit. After his death, as a legal heir the Plaintiff has taken the suit property.
Plaintiff with the help of first defendant has doing the Annadhana Charity
continuously in the suit property. In this juncture, taken the advantage of
the death of Govindaraju, first defendant did not help the Annadhana
Charity in the suit property for the past two years. But the plaintiff, without
the help of the first defendant she has doing the Annadhana Charity in the
suit property in each and every Karthigai star. First defendant is residing in
one portion of the suit property in spite of that, he has constructed the
shops of Astrology centre, cool drinks shop, STD Booth with the help of
card board in small parts and running the said shops in front of the suit
property. Legally it is wrong. First defendant has no right to do like that.
Suit property was allotted for the purpose of doing annadhana charity. First
defendant is going against the intention and purpose of Annadhana
Charity. First defendant did not paid the rent from 01.01.2004 till the date
of filing the suit. 4th defendant filed the additional written statement states
that plaintiff’s husband Govindaraju Mudaliar executed a Sale Agreement
 5

dated 20.01.1976 in favour of first defendant is not true. Like that no Sale
Agreement has been executed by the plaintiff’s husband to the first
defendant. The suit filed for declaration, to declare the Sale Agreement is
false, forgery and it is not binding on the plaintiff. 4 th defendant filed the
Additional written statement stated that regarding the suit property, first
defendant had executed a Settlement Deed dated 17.09.2005 to and in
favour of the third defendant is false. The Settlement Deed is false,
forgery, not binding on the plaintiff. Plaintiff has requested the first
defendant to vacate and handover the possession through in person and
also their men, the first defendant refused to vacate the premises. Finally
the plaintiff has demanded to vacate the suit premises on 16.11.2005 at
the time of Karthigai Star day, when he conducted the Annadhanam also
first defendant refused to vacate the suit property and also disturb him to
do the Annadhana Charity. Inspite of that, plaintiff has completed the
Annadhanam Charity and came. Plaintiff has issued Advocate Notice dated
29.11.2005 to the first defendant to vacate and handover the suit premises
to the plaintiff and also demand the arrears of rent but the said notice did
not received by the first defendant and the same has been willfully return
the notice. Plaintiff has done the Annadhana Charity till the last month of
Karthigai Star. First defendant stated that however he wants to interfere
and stop the Annadhana Charity work from 02.04.2006 onwards. The first
defendant did not have any right to do like that. Hence to vacate the first
defendant from the suit property and remove the construction of shops,
encroachment and construction materials in front of the suit premises and
handover the suit property from the first defendant to the plaintiff.
Plaintiff’s husband has executed a Sale Agreement dated 20.01.1976
regarding the suit property in favour of the defendant is false, forgery, to
declare that the said document is not binding on the plaintiff, to declare
the Settlement Deed dated 17.09.2015 executed by the first defendant to
the 3rd defendant regarding the suit property is invalid, false and forgery.
The said document is not binding on the plaintiff. To recover the arrears of
rent Rs.1200/- for the suit property from the defendants with future
 6

interest, to pay the compensation amount of Rs.150/- to be paid to the

plaintiff with future interest, to asked for permanent injunction restraining
the defendants, men and their agents to interfere with the Annadhana
Charity work and also asked for future interest. The suit may be decreed as
prayed for.

4. Brief of the Written Statement in O.S.No.99/2006

Suit property was purchased by the Veerabhadra Mudaliar, after the

Veerabhadra Mudaliar his second wife Alamelu Ammal has been enjoyed
the suit property, then the adopted son Govindarju Mudaliar has been
enjoyed the suit property after Alameluammal is true. Suit property of
house, plot and others not been allotted for charity. Suit property is not the
Charity property. On 20.01.1976, Govindaraju Mudaliar had sold the suit
property to the first defendant. Need for the family expenses of
Govindaraju he has received a sum of Rs,14,000/- from the first defendant
for the sake of amount, he has handed over the suit premises to the first
defendant regarding this Sale agreement also executed. First defendant
has been enjoyed the suit property as absolute owner from the date of
20.01.1976 onwards without anybody’s let or hindrance, he has enjoyed
the suit property with peaceful possession for the past 30 years
continuously. Hence the right of the suit property came to the first
defendant as adverse possession. For the above said reasons, Govindaraju
Mudaliar has not taken any steps. To confirm the first defendant’s right,
patta has been issued by the Government. After the owner of the suit
property, first defendant has obtained the electricity connection in his
name and the payment receipts stands in the name of the first defendant
from the year 1976 onwards. And also, he got the telephone connection in
the year 1980 with the connection bearing No.VSK42. For the above said
connection, the first defendant has been paying bills and the receipts in his
name and the same from the year 1980 to 1982 has been filed in this
court. Thereafter the connection was disconnected and again in the year
2000, the first defendant obtained new connection bearing No.VSK 279776
 7

and for the same receipts also have been filed in this court. Door steps of
the suit property situated at Panchayat area, hence the name of the first
defendant. The said encroachment tax has been paid from 1979 onwards
and the first defendant alone was paying the house tax filed by the plaintiff
has been created fraudulently. The said late Govindaraju Mudaliar is the
close relative and hence has not been executed except sale agreement. In
the same way, the house tax also not been transferred, but the first
defendant has been enjoyed the suit property as an absolute owner. To
suppress the same, the plaintiff has alleged false allegations and has filed
this suit. No charity work has been carried out in the suit property. As
stated that the property situated at Keezhaperumpallm village,
Tharangampadi Taluk has been allotted has been sold out by the said
Govindaraju. Hence no charity work has been done. Specifically no charity
work has been carried out at all in the suit property. first defendant was
appointed as an agent by Govindararju, to look after the charity work and
he permitted him to stay in the suit property and the first defendant has
accepted to pay a monthly rent of Rs.50/- and all the arrangements were
made through oral agreement, hence all the contents stated are false. First
defendant is neither a tenant, nor a power agent and contrarily the first
defendant has been enjoying the suit property as an absolute owner and in
this context they have stated that the plaintiff has taken the possession of
the suit property in his control and was doing the charity work and hence
all the above allegations are false. Also it is not true that the first
defendant was helping in the charity work of the plaintiff. Already he was
helping the plaintiff, but he was not helping him for the past 2 years as
stated is false. The plaintiff has never done the charity work at any point of
time. Before two years of filing the suit they have stated that front portion
of the suit property has been altered into commercial place is not true.
From the year 1979 onwards, one portion of the suit property was being
used as paddy godown and small grain commercial place and to prove that
evidences are there. Business has been done depending upon the
circumstances of period. First defendant has got the right in the suit
 8

property, based on that the patta has been issued by the government to
the first defendant. After the suit property right in the name of the first
defendant, he settled his son Kumararaj, the 3 rd defendant herein by way
of a settlement deed dated 17.09.2005 the above said settlement deed has
been written in a stamp paper and the same has been registered. From the
date of the said document, the 3 rd defendant, son of the first defendant
has been enjoying the suit property as an absolute owner and on behalf of
the 3rd defendant, his brother and another son of the first defendant, i.e.
the 4th defendant has been administered the same. In this stage, suit has
been filed in the name of first defendant is not true. Defendant’s right has
been denied regarding the suit property, he filed the suit on the based of
rental agreement is not true. The plaintiff has found a false reason to file a
case stated that, I am a tenant in the premises. Hence the suit value and
the court fee paid in the suit is not correct. First defendant did not aware
of the notice issued by the plaintiff and no notice has been received by the
first defendant. The said notice also invalid as per law. Suit is barred by
limitation. Suit property has never been enjoyed by the plaintiff at any
point of time. First defendant was continuously enjoying the suit property
for more than 30 years. Hence the suit to be dismissed with cost.

5. Reply Statement Filed by the Plaintiff in O.S. No.99 / 2006:

Written statement is contrary to the law and not fair. First defendant
has stated in the written statement that the suit property of house, plot
etc. has not been allotted for the charity work is not correct. on 20.01.1976
the plaintiff’s husband Govindaraju Mudaliar has sold the suit property to
the first defendant is not correct. Govindaraju has need of money for his
family expenses and hence he received a sum of Rs.14,000/- by cash from
the first defendant and in response for the same he sold the suit property
to the first defendant is not true and also executed a sale agreement in
favour of the first defendant is not true and no such agreement has been
entered between the first defendant and Govindaraju Mudaliar. Also
Govindaraju Mudaliar had no right to sell the charity share. The said
 9

document has been fabricated by the first defendant for the purpose of this
case. The sale agreement dated 20.01.1976 if false and forged one. As a
owner of the suit property, the first defendant was enjoying the suit
property with absolute right and in peaceful possession and the same is
known to the plaintiff and others and also continuously enjoying the suit
property for more than 30 years till date is not correct. As adverse
possession, the first defendant has got the right in the suit property is not
correct. first defendant has bound to prove the same. He has got the
absolute right and hence no initiative steps has been taken by Govindaraju
is also not correct. Patta has been filed by the first defendant is false and a
forged one, based on that the first defendant has no right over the suit
property. Eventhough the first defendant has got the electricity and
telephone connections in his name regarding the suit property he has no
right in the suit property except that the first defendant as a tenant has no
right in the suit property. Encroachment tax has been levied to the door
step of the suit property door step is not correct. The above said
documents are false and forged. First defendant has stated in his written
statement that no charity work has been done in the suit property is not
correct and that the property allotted for charity work has been sold out by
Govindaraju is also not correct. First defendant is the tenant in the suit
property. Govindaraju Mudaliar has appointed the first defendant as his
agent as a brother-in-law to perform the charity work in the suit property
and first defendant is not the owner of the suit property. first defendant
has stated in his written statement that he has obtained the patta in his
name regarding the suit property based on that the first defendant has
executed the settlement deed in favour of his son the 3 rd defendant
Kumararaj and handed over the suit property. from the date of the said 3 rd
defendant is the absolute owner of the suit property and has been enjoying
the same. On behalf of the 3rd defendant, his brother and the first
defendant’s another son, i.e. the 4 th defendant has administering the same
is not true. The above said document is false and forged. The documents
 10

were fabricated for this case and hence the suit may be decreed with cost
as prayed by the plaintiff.

6. Brief of Additional Written Statement Filed by the 4h Defendant

in O.S. No.99 / 2006 on 28.02.2017 and the same been adopted
by the 2nd & 3rd Defendants:

Contents of the written statement filed by the first defendant and alo
the contents of the additional written statement are one and the same.
hence that has not been mentioned in detailed.

7. Brief of the Additional Written Statement filed by the 4 th

Defendant in O.S. No.99 / 2006 dated 12.06.2017 and the
same has been adopted by the 2nd & 3rd Defendants:

Plaintiff’s husband Govindaraju Mudaliar has executed a document

dated 20.01.1976 to the first defendant regarding the suit property is true.
From 20.01.1976 onwards first defendant has been enjoying the property
as an absolute owner and he has got the right as patta also has been
issued in the name of the first defendant regarding the suit property. In
the above said way the first defendant has every right over the suit
property, hence he has executed the settlement deed dated 17.09.2005 in
favour of the 3rd defendant. Through the settlement deed the 3rd defendant
becomes an absolute owner of the suit property. Plaintiff came to know
that through the additional written statement filed by the defendants side
is not correct. First defendant’s right in the suit property had been
intimated to the plaintiff and her husband in the year 1997 itself. Plaintiff’s
requisition, and right are barred by limitation and prayer stated in the
amended plaint is not entitled to the plaintiff. The said declaration and
prayers are barred by limitation. Suit was barred by limitation. Hence the
suit to be dismissed.

8. Brief of the plaint in O.S. No.113 / 2006:

Plaintiff is the owner of the suit property consisting of tiled house and
backyard. Entire suit property belonged to the plaintiff’s father and was in
 11

possession and occupancy for more than 30 years. Patta of the suit
property stands in the name of the plaintiff’s father. With the inducement
of the 2nd defendant, the first defendant is interfering and disturbing him.
Plaintiff’s father was executed a settlement deed dated 17.09.2005 to the
plaintiff based on the love and affection. House tax for the suit property
stands in the name of the plaintiff. For the sake of his work, plaintiff has to
go to several places, he appointed his brother as an agent to maintain the
suit property. plaintiff’s brother, the agent of the plaintiff has been running
the STD booth, small shop and cool drinks shop in the suit property. since
the plaintiff has been enjoying the suit property, first defendant has no
right in the suit property, first defendant is the sister of the plaintiff’s
father. First defendant has no right in the suit property. If the first
defendant is there any right in the suit property, the right has gone
because the plaintiff and his father has been in continuous possession of
the suit property for more than 30 years. But the first defendant with the
help of his men interfered with the possession of the suit property from
24.04.2006 onwards. First defendant has no right to do that. Plaintiff prays
this Hon’ble Court to pass a permanent injunction restraining the
interference of the defendants, their men, agents etc. with the peaceful
possession of the plaintiff’s suit property. the suit may be decreed with as
prayed for.

9. Brief of the Written Statement filed by the first defendant in

O.S. No.113 / 2006:

Suit filed by the plaintiff is contrary to the law and is not fair. The
suit may be dismissed in the initial stage itself O.S. No.99 / 2006 filed by
the defendant against the plaintiff’s father for recovery of possession
and for permanent injunction and asking for further relief in the suit
property. To protect the case of the plaintiff, Vedhaiah Mudaliar had no
right in the suit property, wantonly created the false and forged
documents and has stated that the plaintiff has got the right and
possession of the suit property based on that, falsely created forged
 12

documents of settlement deed dated 17.09.2005 and executed in favour

of his son, through the settlement deed and the plaintiff filed the case
against the first defendant. Hence the suit to be dismissed in the initial
stage itself. Also survey number, boundaries, extent of land of the suit
property has wrongly been mentioned in the plaint. Plaintiff is not the
owner of the suit property. Entire suit property is not in the name of the
plaintiff’s father Vedhaiah Mudaliar. Vedhaiah Mudaliar is the absolute
owner of the suit property and in the house without anybody’s
hindrance for the past 35 years is not true. Patta stands in the name of
the plaintiff’s father is also not true. Plot approximate patta filed by the
plaintiff is fake and forged and the same has been fabricated by the
plaintiff. Based on the patta, plaintiff or his father should not have any
right in the suit property. On 17.09.2005 plaintiff’s father has executed a
settlement deed in favour of the plaintiff is false and forged. The said
document has been fabricated by the plaintiff and his father with a mala
fide intention to grab the suit property. settlement deed has been
mortgaged for the loan purpose is not true. House tax receipts filed
along with the plaint by the plaintiff were forged one. Plaintiff has gone
to several places due to his duty and his brother has been maintaining
the suit property as his agent is not true. Plaintiff is working in the Air
Force in the Indian Army. When the plaintiff is on duty through his
father a false settlement deed has been fabricated and tried to grab the
suit property. Brother of the plaintiff, based as a power agent he is
running the STD booth, small shop and cool drinks shops in the suit
property is not true. First defendant is the sister of the plaintiff’s father.
First defendant has no right and enjoyment in the suit property is not
true. Even though the first defendant is having right in the suit property,
the said right has gone since the statement that the plaintiff’s father
was continuously enjoying the suit property for more than 30 years is
not true. Either the plaintiff or his father has not been enjoying the suit
property continuously for over 30 years. Plaintiff has stated that his
father has got the right in the suit property but has not been impleaded
 13

him as a party in the suit is affected for non-joinder of parties.

Veerabadra Mudaliar is the father-in-law of the first defendant. As per
the registered will dated 16.04.1950 executed by Veerabadra Mudaliar,
the suit property and the house had been allotted for charity work. The
said charity should be done on each and every Karthigai star day of the
Tamil month and food should be distributed to 20 poor people which
has been emphasized in “E” schedule property allotted and the net
income after deduction of kist tax and other miscellaneous expenses, be
spent on charity work. After the life time of Veerabadra Mudaliar,
Pavadai Mudaliar was administering the charity work and not been
satisfied with his administration, Alamelu Ammal, the second wife of
Veerabadra Mudaliar took charge of the same as per the will. After the
life time of Alamelu Ammal, her son Govindaraju adopted by her as per
the will and who is the husband of the first defendant has taken
possession of the suit property and carrying out the charity work.
Defendant and her husband Govindaraju Mudaliar were residing in the
Keezhaperumpallm village to look after the charity work, and Govindarju
Mudaliar has appointed his brother-in-law i.e. the first defendant’s
brother Mr.Vedhaiah Mudaliar and also permitted him to stay in one
protion of the suit property to carry out the charity work and the same
has been agreed by an oral agreement and accordingly Vedhaiah
Mudaliar, with the permission of Govindaraju Mudaliar residing in one
protion of the suit property and he has also agreed to pay a sum of
Rs.50/- as monthly rent and helping first defendant’s husband in his
charity work in the suit property. the said monthly rent of Rs.50/- paid
by the plaintiff’s father utilized for the charity work. Vedhaiah Mudaliar
has been paying the house tax in the name of Govindaraju Mudaliar.
Govindaraju Mudaliar expired in the year 2002 and after his demise
defendant has taken the possession as a legal heir and carrying out the
charity work with the help of plaintiff’s father. Taking advantage of the
death of Govindaraju Mudaliar, plaintiff’s father ceased to help in doing
the charity work in the suit property for 2 years. Without the help of
 14

plaintiff’s father the first defendant has done the charity work of
annadhanam in the suit property on each and every Karthigai star day
of the Tamil month. When the first defendant asked the plaintiff’s father
to vacate the suit property as she was doing the charity work single
handedly overcoming the act of the plaintiff’s father and she has been
doing the charity work of annadhanam and hence the first defendant
has asked for possession of the suit property and prayed for permanent
injunction against the plaintiff’s father in O.S. No.99 / 2006. To escape
from the case, plaintiff’s father induced the plaintiff and has created the
fake documents and based on the same, case has been filed against
defendant. the plaintiff is not entitled to ask for permanent injunction or
other relief against the first defendant and hence the suit to be
dismissed with cost.

10. After consideration of Plaints in both Suits, Written Statement,

Reply Statement and Additional Written Statement, the
following Issues and Additional Issues were framed:

Issues in O.S. No.99 / 2006:

1. Whether this suit is barred by limitation?

2. Whether the defendants has got the right of adverse possession
in the suit property?
3. Whether the defendant is a tenant in the suit property?
4. Whether the plaintiff is entitled for recovery of possession of the
suit property and for the removal of the constructions in front
the suit property and be handed over the possession to the
plaintiff?
5. Whether the plaintiff is entitled for recovery of rental dues with
future interest from the defendant?
6. Whether the front portion of the suit property is under the
possession of the plaintiff?
7. Whether the plaintiff is entitled for of permanent injunction as
prayed for?
 15

8. Whether the plaintiff is entitled for future income from the suit
property as prayed for?
9. Whether the plaintiff is entitled for compensation with interest
as prayed for?
10. What are the other reliefs entitled to the parties?

Additional Issues in O.S. No.99 / 2006:

1. Whether the suit for declaration is barred by limitation?
2. Whether the plaintiff is entitled for declaration as prayed for?

Issues in O.S. No.113 / 2006

1. Whether the suit property is under the possession and

occupancy of the plaintiff?
2. Whether the plaintiff is entitled to ask for Permanent Injunction
as prayed for?
3. What are the other reliefs are entitled to the parties?

11. Commonly for both the cases in O.S. No.99 / 2006 witnesses
were examined and the documents has been marked. On the plaintiff’s
side P.W.1 to P.W.4 were examined and on the defendant’s side
D.W.1 was examined. On the plaintiff side exhibits Ex.A.1 to Ex.A.12
have been marked as documents and on the defendant’s side exhibits
Ex.B.1 to Ex.B.16 have been marked as documents. Commonly for
both the cases in O.S. No.99 / 2006, witnesses and documents have
been recorded. For the comfort in the common judgment, parties were
mentioned as it is in O.S. No.99 / 2006.

12. Issues 1 and 2 in O.S. No.99 / 2006:

Both side arguments heard and the case has been considered.
First defendant has agreed to purchase the suit property from the
plaintiff’s husband for a sum of Rs.14,000/- on 20.01.1976, first
defendant has paid the full sale consideration to the plaintiff and
entered into sale agreement and, from the date of sale agreement the
 16

first defendant has been enjoying the suit property as absolute owner
and got the patta in the name of the first defendant. First defendant
has settled the suit property to and n favour of his son the 3 rd
defendant on 17.09.2005. From the date of the said deed onwards 3 rd
defendant is the absolute owner of the suit property and enjoying the
same. First defendant has purchased the suit property from the
husband of the plaintiff on 20.01.1976 through sale agreement and
the suit property was being enjoyed by the first defendant and his
family members. Regard the suit property first defendant has executed
a settlement deed dated 17.09.2005 to and in favour of his son the 3 rd
defendant and from that date onwards, the suit property was under
the possession and enjoyment of the 3 rd defendant. The suit filed by
the plaintiff is barred by limitation. Regarding the suit property first
defendant has executed the settlement deed dated 17.09.2005 in
favour of the 3rd defendant and the same has been mentioned in the
written statement filed by the first defendant. The plaintiff has filed an
amendment petition to declare the settlement deed as null and void in
the year 2017. But the said prayer for declaration is barred by
limitation. The learned Defendants counsel argued that the suit to be
dismissed.

13. Regarding the suit property, the sale agreement has been entered
between the plaintiff’s husband and the first defendant on 20.01.1976
is not true. The said sale agreement of 20.01.1976 document has not
been filed in this case, defendant has stated that the patta stands in
the name of the first defendant has not been filed in this case as a
document. Defendant’s counsel argued that the said property was
purchased by the first defendant in the year 1976 itself. Why they did
not transfer the property tax in his name and they paid the property
tax in the name of plaintiff’s husband till the year 1995. Hence it is not
acceptable that the first defendant was enjoying the suit property as
owner form the year 1976 onwards. Regarding the suit property first
defendant has executed a settlement deed dated 17.09.2005 in the
 17

name of the 3rd defendant and 4th defendant to administer the property
as an agent on behalf of the 3 rd defendant as an agent and the same
has been mentioned in the written statement filed by the first
defendant. Plaintiff has filed I.A. No.299 / 2006 to implead the 3 rd & 4th
defendants in the said suit under Order 1, Rule 10 of C.P.C. and also
prayed that, to declare the settlement deed in the name of the 3 rd
defendant as null and void. During the pendency of the interim
application, first defendant expired and they filed separate petition to
implead defendants 2 to 4 as the legal heirs of the first defendant and
the same has been allowed and the defendants 2 to 4 were impleaded
in the suit and then I.A. No.299 / 2006 has not been pressed by the
plaintiff in I.A. No.299 / 2006 filed to implead the 3 rd defendant in the
suit and asked for declaration of the settlement deed in his name as
null and void. The learned counsel for the plaintiff argued that the
limitation period commences from the date of filing the I.A. No.299 /
2006 to implead the 3rd defendant in the suit for declaration, hence the
prayer for declaration and the suit is not barred by limitation.

14. First defendant has purchased the suit property on 20.01.1976

from the plaintiff’s husband by way of sale agreement, from the date
of purchase he is the absolute owner and enjoyment of the suit
property, 1st defendant has been executed a Settlement Deed dated
17.09.2005 in favour of the 3rd defendant, the 1st defendant has been
enjoyed the suit property for more than 30 years as absolute owner, in
the year 2005 onwards it was settled to the 3 rd defendant, the same
has been stated by the 1st defendant in his written statement filed in
the year 2006. Defendants stated in their written statement that the
plaintiff has asked for declaration in the year 2017 to declare the
Settlement Deed as null and void. But the prayers in the suit is barred
by limitation.

15. Even though the defendants states that the plaintiff’s husband
had entered one Sale Agreement on 20.01.1976 with the 1 st
 18

defendant, the said Sale Agreement dated 20.01.1976 has not been
filed on the defendants’ side. When the Sale Agreement dated
20.01.1976 not filed as a document in this Court, first defendant stated
that he has been in possession and enjoyment of the suit property as
an absolute owner for more than 30 years, based on the sale
agreement in the year 1976 is not acceptable one. If the first
defendant is the owner of the suit property after 1976, why he has not
transferred the property tax in the name of the first defendant till
1995, it was standing in the name of the plaintiff’s husband and the
same not been explained by the defendants. First defendant has paid
the property tax in the name of the plaintiff’s husband till 1995 to
prove that he filed the said property tax receipts in the court, the said
property tax receipts has been marked as exhibit A.4 the property tax
stands in the name of plaintiff’s husband till 1995. Defendants states
that first defendant has got the patta in the suit property but the said
patta not been filed in this case.

16. First defendant stated in his written statement filed in the year
2006 stating that he has executed a settlement deed dated 17.09.2005
in the name of the third defendant. Defendants argued that the
declaration suit has been filed to declare the settlement deed as null
and void was filed in the year 2017 to amend the prayer, hence the
suit is barred by limitation. First defendant stated in his written
statement, in the year 2006 the first defendant had executed a
settlement deed dated 17.09.2005 in favour of the 3 rd defendant.
Hence the plaintiff has filed application No.299 / 2006 to implead the
3rd and 4th defendants in the suit. On 05.1.2017 it was not pressed. It
was filed in the year 2006, it was pending till 2017, during that time
first defendant died, hence the legal heirs of the first defendant, 2 to 4
defendants impleaded in the suit as legal heirs in I.A. No.299 / 2006
on the same day itself, regarding the settlement deed already steps
has been taken for the prayer, it should be treated like that. Hence in
the year 2006 itself, he has taken steps to implead the 3 rd defendant in
 19

the suit and asked for declare the settlement deed as null and void.
Hence the court consider that, the suit has been filed for declaration
by the plaintiff is not barred by the limitation, this issue No.1 and
additional issue No.2 answered in favour of the plaintiff.

17. Issue No.2 in O.S. No.99 / 2006:

The learned defendants counsel argued that the first defendant
has been enjoyed the suit property from the year 1976 without
anybody’s let of hindrance, with the knowledge of the plaintiff and his
husband, he was in possession and enjoyed the same for more than
30 years, hence the plaintiff and her husband have no right in the suit
property. By way of adverse possession, the first defendant has got
the right in the suit property.

18. Suit property was purchased on 20.01.1976 by the first

defendant from the plaintiff’s husband by way of sale agreement, patta
has been obtained in the name of the first defendant regarding the suit
property, now stated that the suit property came to the first defendant
by way of adverse possession is not acceptable one. Defendant has
taken two stands in this case, one stand is based on the sale
agreement, first defendant is the owner of the suit property and
another stand is based on the adverse possession the first defendant is
the owner of the suit property. Defendants stated that they have got
the right through adverse possession, but the property tax in the suit
property till 1995 stands in the name of the plaintiff’s husband. The
learned plaintiff counsel argued that after 1995 to till the date of filing
the suit there is no adverse possession was arised in favour of the first
defendant.

19. Defendants stated in their written statement that the first

defendant has been purchased the suit property from the plaintiff’s
husband on 20.1.1976. He was in possession for more than 30 years.
Likewise they stated that by way of adverse possession first defendant
 20

has got the right over the suit property. Defendant has not mentioned
that, whether the first defendant got the right through sale agreement
or he got the right by way of adverse possession. Defendants have
taken two stands in the said case. In which basis, the defendants
stated that they are the owner of the property, they have not taken
clear decision, they have taken two stands in this case. This court come
to the conclusion that it is not acceptable that the first defendant has
got the suit possession by way of adverse possession. Hence the Court
answered the issue No.2 in O.S. No.99 / 2006.

20. Issue No.2 in O.S. No.99 / 2006 and Issue No.1 and 2 in O.S.
No.113 /2006:
First defendant stated in the settlement deed that the suit
property is belonged to the first defendant, the settlement deed dated
17.09.2005 in favour of the 3rd defendant, when the suit property was
owned by the plaintiff’s husband, how it comes to the own property of
first defendant, it has not been stated in the settlement deed,
defendants argued that based on the sale agreement entered between
the plaintiff’s husband and first defendant on 20.01.1976 the first
defendant became the owner of the suit property. To prove the case,
the said sale agreement dated 20.1.1976 entered between the
plaintiff‘s husband and the first defendant has not been filed.
Defendants did not proved their case. Hence the first defendant
become the owner of the suit property basis on the sale agreement is
not acceptable, he has no right in the suit property without having any
right in the property, he has settled the settlement deed to the 3 rd
defendant, stating that first defendant is the absolute owner of the
property. and also not filed the patta in the name of the first
defendant. The learned plaintiff counsel argued that the first defendant
has settled the suit property in the name of 3 rd defendant on
17.09.2005 by way of fraudulently, hence the settlement is invalid
document, based on the invalid settlement deed the 3 rd defendant has
 21

no right in the suit property. the 3rd defendant is not entitled to ask for
permanent injunction against the plaintiff, since the plaintiff is the
owner of the suit property. Regarding the suit property, first defendant
has no right to execute the settlement deed in favour of the 3 rd
defendant.

21. The learned defendants counsel argued that the suit property
came to the plaintiff’s husband through the forefathers is true,
plaintiff’s husband sold the suit property to the first defendant by way
of sale dated 20.01.1976 for a sum of Rs.14,000/-, the suit property
has been handed over on the same day to the first defendant basis on
the sale agreement he has been enjoyed the suit property as absolue
owner, then he executed a settlement deed dated 17.09.2005 in favour
of the 3rd defendant and handed over the possession of the suit
property to the 3rd defendant, he transferred the property tax in his
name and enjoyed the suit property by the 3 rd defendant and he
becomes the absolute owner of the suit property. Electricity
connections stands in the name of the first defendant from the year
1976 onwards, first defendant has running the shop in front of the suit
property, presently 4th defendant, power agent of the 3rd defendant,
look after and maintain the suit property after 1976 the plaintiff and his
family members have no right in the suit property, without have any
right in the suit property, the plaintiff is trying to disturb the peaceful
possession of the 3rd defendant, regarding the suit property first
defendant had settled the property by way of settlement deed dated
17.09.2005 to and in favour of the 3rd defendant is the valid document,
based on the settlement deed, the 3rd defendant is in the suit
possession, since the plaintiff should not interfere with the peaceful
possession of the first defendant.

22. Defendants stated in their written statement that the plaintiff and
the defendants admits that the suit property was owned by the
plaintiff’s husband. He sold the suit property by way of sale dated
 22

20.01.1976 to the first defendant and received the sale consideration of

Rs.14,000/- from the first defendant, from the year 1976 onwards, first
defendant is in the possession of the suit property and also obtained
the patta in his name. The suit property has been settled to and in
favour of the 3rd defendant by way of settlement deed dated
17.09.2005 as a owner of the property, property tax and patta has
been transferred in the name of the 3 rd defendant. whether the
defendants have proved that in which way the first defendant is the
owner of the property? It should be decided accordingly.

23. Third defendant stated in his written statement in O.S. No.113 /

2006 that the suit property was stands in the name of 3rd defendant’s
father first defendant. First defendant has been enjoyed the suit
property and become the absolute owner for more than 30 years. Patta
issued in the name of the first defendant, out of love and affection to
the 3rd defendant, first defendant has executed the settlement deed
dated 17.09.2005, third defendant has got the house tax of the suit
property in his name. Settlement deed dated 17.09.2005 executed by
the first defendant in favour of the 3rd defendant has been marked as
Ex.B13 filed. In 2, 3 and 4th page of the Ex.B13 stated that

.… WHEREAS V.Kumararaj, the settlee herein is the son of the

settlor.
WHEREAS the settlor herein is desirous of providing the under
mentioned property for the benefit of the settlee. The settlor is the
absolute owner of the suit property.

NOW THIS DEED OF SETTLEMENT WITNESSETH that EDAIYA

MUDALIAR the settlor herein, in consideration of the natural love and
affection which the settlor has towards his son V.KUMARARAJ the
settlee herein VEDAIYA MUDALIAR, the settlor herein doth hereby
settle, transfer and assign to V.KUMARA RAJ, the settle herein all those
 23

piece and parcel of Natham House site measuring about 622 square
meter and a pan tiled House measuring 222 sq. meters therein situated
at West Car Street, Vaitheeswarankoil, Sirkali Talauk, Nagapattinam
District …”

24. How the first defendant hs got the suit property and how he
became the absolute owner of the suit property, patt has been issued
in the name of the first defendant have never been mentioned in
Ex.B13. In Ex.B13 stated that the first defendant is become the
absolute owner of the suit property. There is no details of either the
first defendant has got the adverse possession in the suit property
since he is in possession form more than 30 years and hence he got
pata in his name (or) after purchasing the property by the first
defendant from the plaintiff’s husband Govindaraju by way of sale deed
dated 20.01.1976 from the date of purchase is he absolute owner of
the property, the said details has not been mentioned in Ex.B.13. In
Ex.B.13 simply mentioned that first defendant is the absolute owner of
the suit property, how he got the absolute ownership in the suit
property has not been mentioned in Ex.B.13. And also not mentioned
the patta No. in Ex.B.13.

25. In which way the first defendant became the owner of the suit
property the same has not been mentioned in Ex.B13, he stated that he
is the absolute owner suit property and he has no right to settled the
suit property in favour of the 3 rd defendant. Defendants stated that
house tax receipts issued in the name of 3 rd defendant regarding the
suit property. To support, this defendant filed Ex.B.7 series. After
scrutinizing the document of Ex.B.7, after filing the suit only the
property tax has been paid in the name of the 3 rd defendant on
11.02.2007. Defendants states that the electricity connections of the
suit property in the name of first defendant, business tax has been
levied in front of the suit property issued in the name of the first
defendant, telephone connection has been taken in the suit property in
 24

the name of the first defendant. From the year 1976 onwards electricity
connection, telephone connection, business tax has been paid in the
name of the first defendant, hence the first defendant became the
owner of the suit property.

26. First defendant cannot become the owner of the suit property,
since the electricity connection, telephone connection, business tax for
shops in the name of the first defendant. Defendants stated in the
written statement filed in O.S. No.99 / 2006 stating that the first
defendant after entered a sale agreement dated 20.01.1976 with the
plaintiff’s husband, he has got the right possession of the suit property.
But in O.S. No.113 / 2006 stated that the suit property came to the first
defendant through the adverse possession for more than 30 years,
hence the first defendant became the owner of the suit property. First
defendant did not proved his ownership and says that he became the
absolute owner of the suit property is not acceptable. Sale Agreement
dated 20.01.1976 executed by the plaintiff’s husband to the first
defendant not been filed on the defendant’s side. There is no document
filed by the first defendant to show that plaintiff’s husband had
executed the Sale Agreement dated 20.01.1976 in favour of the 1 st
defendant hence the Sale Agreement dated 20.01.1976 is invalid.
Hence this court decided that the plaintiff is not entitled to ask relief in
favour of the plaintiff as prayed for.

27) How did the 1st defendant has got the right in the suit property,
how he became the absolute owner of the suit property the same has
not been stated clearly and simply says that 1 st defendant is the
absolute owner of the suit property and he has executed the Settlement
Deed dated 17.09.2005 in the name of the 3 rd defendant. Hence the
plaintiff is entitled to ask the relief of the settlement deed document as
null and void. . This Court has decided and answered the issue that, the
1st defendant without have any right to settle the suit property in the
 25

name of the 3rd defendant based on the said document, first defendant
has been enjoyed the proper as owner and they ask for Permanent
Injuction. This Court decided that the 3 rd defendant is not entiled to ask
for Permanent Injunction based on the said document. This Court
answered the Issue No.2 in O.S. No.99 / 2006 and the issue No.1 & 2 in
O.S. No.113 / 2006.

28. Issue No.3 & 4 in O.S.No.99/06

Suit property was purchased by the Veerabadra Mudaliar,
Veerabadra Mudaliar has got two wives, Plaintiff’s husband Govindaraju
was adopted by Veerabadra Mudaliar’s second wife Alamelu ammal, as
per will dated 16.04.1950 executed by Veerabadra Mudaliar, income
derived from the schedule property to be used for the purpose of charity
work. Plaintiff’s father-in-law Veerabadra Mudaliar died on 04.03.1951.
As per will executed by Veerabadra Mudaliar, the charity work has been
done by the plaintiff’s husband and the plaintiff’s mother-in-law, income
derived from the suit property. After the death of Alamelu ammal, the
charity work has been done by th Plaintiff’s husband, first defendant is
the brother of the Plaintiff, too many distance between the suit property
and the residence of the plaintiff’s family hence the first defendant has
look after the charity work and he stayed in one portion of the suit
property for the monthly rent of Rs.50/-, the said monthly rent of
Rs.50/- used for the charity purpose. When the plaintiff’s husband was
alive the first defendant has helped him, after compromise arrived
between the plaintiff and first defendant, the first defendant was helped
the plaintiff to do the charity work, on 16.11.2005 when she is doing the
charity work, the first defendant has not done any help to do the charity
work, and disturbed her, hence on 29.01.2005 plaintiff had sent an
Advocate Notice to the first defendant stating that to pay the arrears of
rent in the suit property and also vacate and hand over the suit property
to the plaintiff. But the said Advocate Notice has not been received by
the first defendant, the same has been returned, first defendant did not
 26

have any right in the suit property, he had constructed shops in front of
the suit property and let out the same for rent and also constructed the
constructions in front of the suit property should be removed and hand
over the vacant possession of the suit property to the plaintiff. The
above said contents has been argued by the plaintiff’s Advocate.

29. With the permission of the Plaintiff’s husband first defendant has
paid Rs.50/- as a monthly rent in the suit property is not true. Charity
has been done in the suit property is not true. First defendant has been
purchased the suit property from the plaintiff by way of sale agreement
dated 20.01.1976 for the sale consideration of Rs.14,000/- as a owner
he has been enjoyed absolutely and executed the Settlement deed
dated 17.09.2005 in favour of the 3 rd defendant, in the beginning first
defendant’s name and thereafter the third defendant is the absolute
owner of the suit property. The plaintiff said he paid monthly rent of
Rs.50/- is not true. First defendant is helping the plaintiff to do the
charity work in the suit property is not true. On 20.01.1976, first
defendant has purchased the property from the plaintiff’s husband
hence the first defendant paid the rent and also he became a tenant in
the suit property as stated is false. When the first defendant became
the owner of the suit property he has the right to construct shops in
the suit property and the same has been let out for rent. Without the
right of the plaintiff, he cannot ask for hand over the suit possession.
Hence he cannot ask for the prayer for possession. The same has been
argued by the defendants counsel.

30. Defendants accepted that the suit property was purchased by the
plaintiff’s father-in-law Veerabadra Mudaliar. After the death of
Veerabadra Mudaliar, suit property was maintained by the plaintiff’s
husband the same has been accepted by the defendants. It should
have been decide that whether the first defendant came to the suit
property as a tenant or first defendant has purchased the suit property
 27

from the plaintiff’s husband and got the ownership. Plaintiff stated in
his plaint that the first defendant came to the suit property for a
monthly rent of Rs.50/- the same has been paid to the plaintiff’s
husband. The said monthly rent has been utilized for the charity work.
Plaintiff stated that the same in her plaint. Defendants argued that the
first defendant has purchased the suit property from the plaintiff’s
husband on 20.01.1976 from the date onwards, he becomes the owner
of the property. No documents has been filed to shows that the suit
property was purchased by the first defendant on 20.01.1976.
defendants have not proved their case.

31. No document has been filed to show that the suit property was
purchased by the first defendant on 20.01.1976 and received the
amount of Rs.14,000/- from the plaintiff’s husband is not accepted by
the defendants. Defendants stated that the suit property was
purchased by the defendants from plaintiff’s father. Plaintiff’s husband
had sent an advocate notice dated 03.06.1997 to the first defendant,
the same has been marked as exhibit Ex.B.8, no reply notice has een
sent by the first defendant. Plaintiff’s son’s Advocate Notice Ex.B.8
stated that with the permission of plaintiff’s husband, the first
defendant was residing in the suit property. The first defendant not
denied the allegation. Defendants stated that from 20.01.1976 onwards
they are in possession of the suit property. But inEx.B.8 they stated
that with the permission of the plaintiff’s husband, first defendant
residing in the suit property, the said statement has not been denied by
the first defendant. Hence the suit property was purchased on
20.01.1976 by the first defendant has not been accepted.

32. Plaintiff states that the first defendant came to the suit property
as a tenant, the same has been denied by the defendants and also on
which basis the first defendant came to the suit property, the same has
not been proved and also not filed any document on their side. D.W.1
 28

stated in his evidence that, he do not know when his father came to
the suit property and also he do not know in which year his father
came to the suit property. I do not know that agreement has been
entered between the plaintiff’s husband and my father either in oral or
in written regarding the suit property. I do not know that my father’s
family is poor. D.W.1 states the plaintiff’s husband can’t come from his
village Keezhaperumpallam to Vaitheeswaran Koil, hence the plaintiff’s
husband given permission to my father to stay in one portion of the suit
property. Monthly rent has been fixed at Rs.50/- per month, the said
rent has been utilized for the Annadhana charity for each and every
month of Karthigai day, the same has been agreed by the first
defendant with the plaintiff is not true.

33. P.W.1 in his evidence states that prior to 1976 they asked him to
resiede in the suit property. They had executed the property to my
father in the year 1976. I do not know that whether my father was
residing in the suit property prior 1976 on the basis on the permission
of the plaintiff’s husband, my father only known the fact.

34. P.W.1 in his evidence states that before 1976, first defendant
came to the possession for reside. Defendants denied that the first
defendant came in the suit property as a tenant under the plaintiff’s
husband’s permission, the same has been stated by the plaintiff, but
the defendants have denied the allegation, defendant has to prove
that on which basis the first defendant came to the suit property
prior to 1976. But the D.W.1 never stated anything about that in his
evidence. Defendant has not filed any document to show that the
first defendant has purchased the suit property in the year 1976.
There is no evidence has been adduced that on which basis the first
defendant is residing in the suit property as a tenant. Plaintiff states
that first defendant residing in the suit property as a tenant. Denying
the statement no evidence produced on the defendants side. This
 29

Court come to the conclusion that the first defendant is residing in

the suit property as tenant under the Plaintiff’s husband.

35. When the first defendant was residing in the suit property as
tenant with the plaintiff’s husband, he has no right to alter the suit
property without the permission of the plaintiff’s husband. Without
obtaining the permission from the plaintiff and her husband, first
defendant constructed shops in front of the house. He has no right to
do that, hence the first defendant has have the responsibility to remove
the construction in the front portion of the suit property. If there is an
electrical connection stands in the name of first defendant, if there is a
telephone connection stands in the name of the first defendant, he is
not become the owner of the suit property. Defendants have to prove
that, in which basis the first defendant has got the right over the suit
property. Defendants have failed to prove that the first defendant not
came as a tenant in the suit property and also he is in the possession
through the Sale Agreement. Hence this court decided that the
defendants shall remove the constructions mad by them in front of the
suit property and defendants shall hand over the possession of the suit
property to the plaintiff and answered the issue 3 and 4 in O.S. No99 /
2006 accordingly.

36. Issue Nos.6 and 7 in O.S. No.9 / 06:

Plaintiff’s father had executed a will, the same may be marked as
Ex.A.1, stated that out of the income from the suit property, the charity
work has to be done, as per will out of income from the suit property,
the charity work has been done on each and every month of Karthigai
day. When the plaintiff was doing the charity work in the suit property,
on 16.11.2005, first defendant has interfered and disturbed the work.
The learned plaintiff counsel has argued that Permanent Injunction may
be granted and restraining the defendants to interfere with the charity
work in front of the suit property.
 30

37. On the defendant’s side, the defendant counsel argued that the
plaintiff never doing any charity work in front of the suit property at
any point of time, when the plaintiff was doing the charity work on
16.11.2005, the first defendant has interfered with their work is not
true. Plaintiff has not done any charity work in the suit property, hence
the plaintiff cannot ask for not to interfere with the charity work.

38. Plaintiff states that she is doing the charity work in front of the
suit property, the defendants were interfering with the said work. But
the plaintiff (P.W.1) states in his evidence that till date the defendants
did not permit the plaintiff in the suit property, no Annadhana charity
has been done in the front portion of the suit property, the plaintiff is
doing the charity work outside of the suit property only. Hence the
plaintiff is not entitled to ask for Permanent Injunction restraining the
defendant to interfere with the front portion of the suit property for
charity work. This court has decided accordingly and answered the
issue No.6 and 7 in O.S. No.99 / 06.

39. Issue No.5, 8 and 9 in O.S. No.99 / 06:

The learned plaintiff counsel argued that the first defendant did
not paid the rents from 01.01.2004 in the suit property as tenant, for
the period from01.01.2004 to 31.12.2005 for 24 months, rent comes
around a sum of Rs.1200/-, the first defendant to pay the arrears of
rent to the plaintiff and also pay the compensation for the suit
property.

40. The learned defendant counsel argued that the first defendant
residing in the suit property not as a tenant, hence he need not pay the
rents to the plaintiff, when the defendants became the owner of the
property, plaintiff cannot ask for pay the amounts and compensation
from the plaintiff.
 31

41. Plaintiff stated that the first defendant has kept the arrears of rent
from 01.01.2004 for the suit property. Plaintiff has not proved that the
first defendant kept the arrears of rent from 01.01.2004, in this regard
no document has been filed by the plaintiff to prove his case, hence the
plaintiff is not entitled to collect the arrears of rent from the first
defendant in the suit property, the plaintiff asked for future interest and
compensation. The plaintiff says that the first defendant is a tenant,
hence she cannot claim the compensation for the suit property from
01.01.2006 to 31.03.2006 for Rs.150 to be paid. Plaintiff is not entitled
to ask for compensation. The said decision has been decided by this
Hon’ble Court and answered the Issue No.5, 8 and 9 in O.S. No.99 / 06
accordingly.

42. Issue No.10 in. O.S. No.99 / 06 and Issue No.3 in 113 / 06:
Issue Nos. 1 to 9 and Additional Issue Nos.1 & 2 in O.S. No.113 /
06 were answered on this basis and nature of the case, cost of the suit
may be borne by either party. And also not entitled for other reliefs the
same has been decided by this Court. And Issue No.10 in O.S. No99 /
06 answered accordingly.

Finally,
(i) In O.S. No.99 / 6 partly allowed without cost, regarding the
prayer of recovery of the possession from the first defendant is
allowed, the defendants shall vacate and hand over the the suit
property to the plaintiff within two months from the today
(23.04.2018) and remove the shops and construction in front of the
suit property, Regarding the Declaration Prayer about the suit
property, first defendant has executed a settlement deed dated
17.09.2005 in the name of the 3rd defendant declared as null and
void, regarding the arrears of rent in the suit property, future
income and the compensation prayer and also declare the sale deed
 32

dated 20.01.1976 in the name of the first defendant as null and

void and for Permanent Injunction prayers have been dismissed by
this Court.

(ii) Suit is dismissed without cost in O.S. No.113 / 06 and passed

the Decree and Judgment accordingly.

This common judgment has been dictated to steno-typist,

computerized by he, corrected and pronounced by me in the open
court, this 23rd day of April 2018.

signed by
District Munsif Judge, Sirkali

Common Evidence has been recorded in O.S. No.99 / 2006,

recorded the Witnesses and List of Documents:

Witnesses on the Plaintiff’s side:

P.W.1 Smt.Vijayalakshmi
P.W.2 Mr.Muthukumarasamy
P.W.3 Mr.Iyyappan
P.W.4 Mr.Ananadhan

Witnesses on the Plaintiff’s side:

D.W.1 Mr.Natarajan

Documents on the Plaintiff’s Side:

Exhibit A.1 Original Will executed by Veerabadra

16.04.1950 Mudaliar.
Exhibit A.2 18.04.1951 Original Adoption Deed executed by
Alamelu Ammal.
Exhibit A.3 11.09.1964 Original Will executed by Alamelu Ammal.
Exhibit A.4    House Tax receipts series stands in the
  name of Govindarju Mudaliar and Vedhaiah
Mudaliar.
 33

Exhibit A.5 29.11.2005 Copy of the Advocate Notice issued by

Vijayalakshmi to Vedhaiah Mudaliar.
Exhibit A.6   The said Advocate Notice returned cover.
Exhibit A.7 22.06.2006 Complaint copy sent to the Inspector of
Police station, Vaitheeswaran Koil by
Vijayalakshmi.
Exhibit A.8 22.06.2006 Police department issued the receipt of having
received the complaint.
Exhibit A.9 01.04.1975 Original Partition Deed entered between
Govindaraj Mudaliar and others.
Exhibit A.10
-- Copy of the plaint in O.S. No.113 / 2016.
Exhibit A.11
-- 16 photos with negative.
Exhibit A.12  21.10.1937
Certified copy of the Sale Deed executed
by Ammakannu Ammal and another to
Veerabadra Mudaliar.

Documents on the Defendant’s Side:

Exhibit B.1 -- Business Tax receipts series in the name

of Vedhaiah.

Exhibit B.2 -- Electricity payment receipts series in the

name of Vedhaiah.
Electricity payment receipts series in the
Exhibit B.3 --
name of Vedhaiah.
Electricity payment receipts series in the
Exhibit B.4 --
name of Vedhaiah.
Telephone Bill payment receipts series in
Exhibit B.5 --
the name of Vedhaiah.
Letter sent by Special Officer, T.N.C.S.C
Exhibit B.6 --
to Vedhaiah Mudaliar.
Tax receipts series in the name of
Exhibit B.7 --
Kumararaja.
Muthukumarasamy sent an Advocate
Exhibit B.8 03.06.1997
Notice to Vedhaian - copy

Exhibit B.9 10.06.1997 The above said Amended Notice.

Business Tax receipts series issued by

Exhibit B.10 -- Vaidheeswaran Koil Municipality in the
name of Vedhaiah Mudaliar.
 34

Electricity payment receipts series stands

Exhibit B.11 --
in the name of Vedhaiah Mudaliar.

Payment receipts series issued on several

Exhibit B.12 -- payments by the Vaidheeswaran Koil
Municipality.
Certified copy of the Settlement Deed
Exhibit B.13 17.09.2005
executed by Vedhaiah Mudaliar.
Original Driving License with endorsed
Exhibit B.14 --
copy in the name of Natarajan.

Exhibit B.15 18.12.2017 Copy of Chitta in the name of Kumararaj.

Copy of Adangal register in the name of

Exhibit B.16 18.12.2017
Kumararaja.

signed by
District Munsif Judge, Sirkali