Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

6. For filing the said suit, the original cause of action is dated 24.03.1986 and on that day, the sale deed had been registered in the name of the plaintiff and subsequently, a portion of the property had been alienated to and in favour of one Kathiresan dated 06.01.1992. Subsequently, the first defendant had filed suit in O.S.No.2811 and the same was dismissed. On 23.04.1992, the plaintiff had levelled a criminal case before the District Crime Branch. The same was registered on 24.03.2004. The Virudhunagar Municipality had issued demand notice to the plaintiff for arrears of tax and on 15.04.2004, the defendants had attempted to trespass into the suit schedule mentioned property. Hence, the suit has been filed within the jurisdiction of the District Munsif Court, Virudhunagar. The plaintiff had paid a sum of Rs.75.70 for permanent injunction pertaining to the 'A' shcedule menionted property and Rs.4,800.50 paid towards 'B' schedule mentioned property since the 'B' schedule mentioned property is valued at Rs.64,000/-. Therefore, the plaintiff prayed for grant of permanent injunction restraining the defendants from interfering with the 'A' schedule mentioned property and he prayed that the sale deed created by the first and second defendants in document bearing No.1632, registered on the file of Parasalai Sub Registrar Office dated 18.04.1990 and subsequently, the sale deed bearing No.1996 registered on the file of Virudhunagar Sub Registrar Office, Virudhunagar dated 29.12.1995 are null and void. Hence, the suit had been filed for the above said relief.

16. D.W.1 had adduced evidence that the plaintiff had purchased the schedule mentioned property from one Saravanamuthu Pillai and others on 04.03.1986. Further, he did not know the alienation of a portion of the property to and in favour of one Kathiresan. The plaintiff had executed a general power of attorney pertaining to his property to and in favour of one Chellakutti, the second defendant herein. On the strength of the power of attorney, the power holder, the second defendant had executed a sale deed bearing registration No.1632 of 1990, on the file of Parasalai Sub Registrar Office dated 18.04.1990. Subsequently, the sale deed had been released on 17.11.1995, after paying deficit of stamp duty.

29. The highly competent counsel Mr.S.Radhakrishnan appearing for the first respondent/plaintiff further submits that the first and second defendants had jointly created a forged general power of attorney with mala- fide intention to usurp the property. Knowing the same, the plaintiff had levelled a complaint before the District Crime Branch at Virudhunagar and the same was registered as Crime No.18/1992. Subsequently, the said case had been withdrawn since the first and second defendants are not prepared to claim any civil rights over the plaintiff's property any further. The first defendant had filed a title suit in O.S.No.287 of 1991 and claimed ownership over the plaintiff's property and the same was dismissed. The highly competent counsel further submits that on the strength of forged general power of attorney, the second defendant had executed a sale deed to and in favour of the first defendant dated 18.04.1990. Hence, the plaintiff sought remedy to cancel the said forged document bearing No.1632, dated 18.04.1990, on the file of Sub Registrar, Parasalai. Subsequently, the same was re-registered as document No.1996, dated 29.12.1995. On the strength of this forged document, the first defendant had attempted to interfere with the plaintiff's property on 15.04.2004. Therefore, the permanent injunction is absolute necessary to the plaintiff in order to safeguard his civil rights over the schedule mentioned property. The same was granted by the first appellate Court, after well considering the evidence on both sides and on perusing the exhibits marked by them and as such, there is no lacuna or shortcomings or lapse or any infirmity in the decree and judgment passed in the appeal suit in A.S.No.40 of 2007, on the file of Sub Court, Virudhunagar, dated 15.12.2011. Hence, the highly competent counsel entreats the Court to dismiss the above appeal.

Therefore, the plaintiff is entitled for permanent injunction for restraining / preventing the defendants / appellants in both appeals.

(ii) There is no detailed discussion regarding document bearing No.1632 of 1990, on the file of Parasalai Sub Registrar, dated 18.04.1990. Subsequently, on the strength of the sale deed No.1632 of 1990, the alienation had taken place between the first and second defendants. The document bearing No.1996, on the file of Sub Registrar, dated 29.12.1995 are not valid since the first and second defendants have not marked any documents pertaining to the properties that they are possessing i.e., valid title documents over the suit schedule mentioned property.