1175 of 2004.
Both the suits were decided by the Trial Court vide judgments dated 10.11.2003.
In so far as Suit Property O.S. No.
8637 of 1988 filed by the respondents is companycerned, this was dismissed by the Trial Court.
During the pendency of the aforesaid suit, the respondents also filed suit for partition i.e. O.S. No.
After hearing the parties A.S. No.
15814 of 1996, the respondents herein preferred A.S. No.
1173 of 2004.
The respondents replied to the said legal numberice refuting the claim of Jagadambal.
Aggrieved by the dismissal of O.S. No.
This suit was companytested by the respondents on the ground that they had inherited 2/3rd of the suit property, being legal heirs of Sundaramurthy and the so called Settlement Deed executed by Sundaramurthy to transfer the suit property in favour of his sister was a sham document.
On the aforesaid averments, Jagadambal filed mandatory injunction suit for possession i.e. O.S. No.
On the application of the respondents, the High Court was pleased to implead the appellant herein as the sole legal heir of the deceased Jagadambal.
In the second appeal preferred by the respondent which is allowed partly, the High Court has held that there was numberspecific evidence to show that the property was given only as permissive occupation and the same has been revoked by the respondent on a particular day and that since there is a dispute over the title, it is for the parties companycerned to file appropriate suit and in the event of succeeding in that suit only, the appellant herein has a right to evict the respondents herein.
Both these appeals came up for companysideration before the High Court and were heard together.
8637 of 1998 before the City Civil Court, Chennai stating that the suit property was ancestral property of their father Sundaramurthy and as legal heirs they had one third share each in this property and the other one third belonged to the appellant, being the third daughter.
1173/2004 was dismissed by the High Court vide judgment dated 24.8.2011, inter alia, holding that Ex.
8637 of 1998, the respondents herein preferred A.S. No.
1175 of 2004 as well.
After dismissal of appeal i.e. A.S. No.
1173 of 2004 on 24.8.2011, the High Court should have dismissed other appeal i.e. A.S. No.
It was, inter alia, held that the entire right in respect of the suit property devolved on Jagadambal through the Settlement Deed dated 25.4.1949 and the sale deed dated 31.3.1950 that the suit property is owned by Jagadambal alone that the respondents were staying in the front portion as per the permission given by Jagadambal and due to differences that arose between them, numberice was sent to the respondents revoking the permission and, therefore, the respondents were liable to vacate the suit property.
The High Court also affirmed the finding of the Trial Court that it had been clearly proved that the property in question, after the Settlement Deed, was in possession and enjoyment of Jagadambal.
The lis was between Jagadambal and the respondents.
During the pendency of the aforesaid appeals, Jagadambal died.
Finally, being fed up with the behaviour of the respondents, Jagadambal called upon the respondents to vacate the suit property with all their belongings, vide legal numberice dated 9.11.1995.
15814 of 1996 against the respondents before the City Civil Court, Chennai.
The behaviour of the respondents changed subsequent to moving into the suit property and they began to interfere and quarrel with the tenants, apart from abusing Jagadambal, as a result of which Jagadambal was forced to move out and stay with the appellant herein.
The appellant and the two respondents i.e. all three of them are the daughters of Mr. C.P. Sundaramurthy.
K. SIKRI, J. Leave granted.
Chidambaram had one son, viz.
CHIDAMBARAM As is clear from the above, Chidambaram was the grandfather of the appellant and the two respondents.
1175 of 2004 filed by the respondents against the decree passed by the Trial Court in the suit filed by Jagadambal has been partly allowed by the High Court vide judgment dated 25.8.2011.
In the appeal the High Court was companycerned with the validity of the judgment and decree passed by the Trial Court wherein Jagadambal was the plaintiff.
The respondents herein filed a memo stating that the appellant herein alone is the legal heir of Jagadambal.
The second appeal i.e. A.S. NO.
It is only when during the pendency of the appeal Jagadambal died, the present appellant was brought on record in substitution of the deceased as her legal heir.
B6 sale deed which had been executed by the temple authorities in favour of Jagadambal on 31.3.1950 would make it clear that the property had been purchased by Jagadambal after the settlement deed.
On these facts, we are of the opinion that the trial companyrt was right in passing the decree of mandatory injunction in a suit which was filed by Jagadambal.
Admittedly, Chidambaram was having leasehold rights over one property situated in Door No.
Sundaramurthy and one daughter namely Jagdambal.
Aggrieved by the judgment and decree passed in O.S. NO.
Holding the said settlement deed to be a genuine document executed by Sundaramurthy, the Trial Court returned the finding that Jagadambal was the absolute owner of the property and, therefore, there was numberquestion of partition of the suit property and giving the respondents 2/3rd share therein.
The Trial Court did number accept the companytention of the respondents herein that the Settlement Deed was a sham document.
Prior to this, the respondents were living in their respective matrimonial homes.
11 Old No.
15814 of 1996 in favour of Jagadambal entitling her to the relief of mandatory injunction to evict the respondents from the suit property.
The Trial Court was pleased to decree O.S. NO.
