CHANDRASEKARAN Vs. R SARALA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS appeal has been directed against the decree and judgment in O. S. No. 2550 of 1999 on the file of the Court of the III Additional Judge, City Civil Court, Chennai.

(2.) THE facts of the plaint in brief relevant for the purpose of deciding this appeal are as follows:-The first and second defendants are the brothers of the plaintiff and the third defendant is her sister. The plaintiff's mother Sundaravalli inherited the plaint schedule property under a settlement deed dated 28. 6. 1964, Document No. 1575 of 1964 before the Sub-Registrar, Royapuram, executed by her mother Mrs. Radhammal. Under the said settlement deed dated 28. 6. 1964 Mrs. Radhammal had given right of enjoyment to her daughter Sundaravalli (mother of the plaintiff) and after her death, the plaintiff and the defendants shall enjoy the property equally. Plaintiff's mother expired on 15. 2. 1994 and after her death the suit property was enjoyed and possessed by the defendants and when the plaintiff demanded her 1/4th share in the suit property, the first and second defendants refused to give her share. So, the plaintiff tried to get 1/4th share in the suit property by way of amicable settlement through her relatives and well-wishers. But she failed in her attempts. So, on 14. 12. 1996 she went to the suit property to take her share in the property but, she was restrained by the 1st and 2nd defendants. So, she preferred a complaint before the Tondiarpet Police Station. Police investigated and referred the same as the compliant is civil in nature. Now, the defendants 1 and2 are trying to sell the suit property behind the back of this plaintiff. Hence, the suit for partition of plaintiff's 1/4th share and also for permanent injunction restraining the defendants, their men and agents from alienating or encumbering the plaintiff's /14th share in the plaint schedule property.

(3.) DEFENDANTS 1 and 2 have filed their joint written statement contending as follows:-The suit is not maintainable. The defendant-3 is the sister of these defendants. Defendants mother Sundaravalli obtained the suit property by way of a settlement deed dated 28. 4. 1964 executed by the defendants' grand-mother Mrs. Radhammal. As per the terms of the said settlement deed executed in favour of the defendants' mother, she was given only her life estate and her children are entitled to enjoy the property conveyed under the said settlement deed. Sundaravalli died on 15. 2. 1994 leaving behind D1, D2, plaintiff and D3 as her legal representatives. The defendants deny the allegations that after the death of their mother, the property was enjoyed and possessed by the defendants and when the plaintiff demanded her ? share in the suit property, the defendants refused to give her share and so, she tried to get 1/4th share in the suit property by way of amicable settlement through the relatives and well-wishers. On 6. 8. 1981 the plaintiff had relinquished her right, title and interest in the suit property by way of executing a deed of release. After the execution of the said release deed dated 6. 8. 1981, the plaintiff has no right or title in respect of any share in the plaint schedule property. Similarly, Mrs. Thenmozhi, who is the other co-sharer and a sister, also released her title and interest in the suit property in favour of D1 and D2. Now the defendants have become absolute owners of the suit property. The plaintiff has chosen to lodge a police complaint before H-3, Tondiarpet Police Station in 1996 and after enquiry, the Police advised the plaintiff not to proceed further as she has already relinquished her entire right in respect of the plaint schedule property in favour of D1 and D2. On the ill-advice the plaintiff has chosen to file a vexatious suit only to harass these defendants. The plaintiff has no cause of action to file the suit. Hence, the suit is liable to be dismissed with costs.