- (1.) THIS appeal has been filed by the defendants against the judgment and decree passed by the First Appellate Court in A.S.No.65 of 2003 dated 14.09.2004 in reversing the judgment and decree of the trial Court made in O.S.No.110 of 1992 dated 30.04.2003.
(2.) THE appellants herein are the defendants and the respondent is the plaintiff before the trial Court. The case of the plaintiff before the trial Court would be as follows: The suit property is the ancestral joint family of the plaintiff and his brother, the 1st defendant. About 10 years ago, there was a partition in the family and in the said partition, the plaintiff was allotted land and 1/3rd right in the well and pump set. During the pendency of the suit, the 1st defendant died and his legal representatives have been added as defendants 2 to 7. The 7th defendant had been exonerated from the suit on 23.09.1998. At the time of partition, there was no pump set. Hence, the 1st defendant and another brother Kannan jointly installed pump set in the suit well. Since the service connection was taken in the name of the defendant, a separate agreement was entered into among the plaintiff, the 1st defendant and Kannan on 26.5.1984. As per the said agreement, each one was given 1/3rd right in the pump set. The plaintiff is enjoying his 1/3rd right till today and he is irrigating his lands with the said pump set. Therefore, the plaintiff has 1/3rd right in the suit property. The defendant, taking advantage of the fact that the service connection stands in his name is preventing the plaintiff from using the pump set. When the defendant had attempted to obstruct the plaintiff from taking water to his groundnut crops on 25.01.1992, the plaintiff had prevented him from doing so. Since the defendant is preventing the plaintiff from taking water through pump set, the plaintiff has filed the suit for permanent injunction. The written statement filed by the defendant is as follows: The defendant has denied all the allegations contained in the plaint. According to the defendant, it is true that the suit property is an ancestral property but it is false that there was a partition about 10 years ago. The suit properties were partitioned in the year 1959 itself. It is true that there was no pump set at that time. It is false that the plaintiff has 1/3rd right over the well and the pump set. The suit property was divided into 5 parts. The plaintiff has suppressed these facts and has claimed 1/3rd which is not valid. The defendant has 5 brothers viz., Anumuthu, Natesan, Gopal Kannaiyan and Munisami. The plaintiff was entitled only to 1/5th right. One brother Kannan @ Kannaiyan has sold his 1/5th right in favour of 4 brothers by agreement dated 27.3.1971. Hence, it is false that Kannan @ Kannaiyan had 1/3rd right over the suit property. There was a pump set in S.No.216/1, which was allotted to the share of Kannan. The plaintiff along with other brothers had given consent letters in favour of the 1st defendant to take electricity service connection in his name. Another brother Gopal had sold his right in the well, Kavalaipadi and the channel in favour of the 1st defendant on 18.10.1983. Hence, the defendant is entitled to half share in the well and the pump set. It is false that the plaintiff and the defendant along with other brother Kannaiyan, had installed pump set and that an agreement was executed on 26.05.1984. The said agreement was created by the plaintiff. The plaintiff or the said Kannan or anybody has no right over the well and the pump set. The plaintiff never used the pump set for taking water. Further, it is false that the plaintiff was prevented on 25.01.1992 from taking water to his groundnut crops. The plaintiff should have asked for declaration of his title. Hence, the suit for bare injunction is not maintainable. The plaintiff field a suit in O.S.No.487 of 1984 against his brother Gopal and the suit ended against the plaintiff. The plaintiff preferred an appeal in A.S.No.2 of 1993 and the same was also dismissed. Since the defendant did not depose in favour of the plaintiff, the plaintiff has filed this suit with a view to wreck vengeance. The documents filed by the plaintiff are not true documents. Therefore, is no cause of action for the suit. The court fee paid is incorrect and therefore, prayed for dismissal of the suit with costs.
(3.) THE trial Court had framed necessary issues and entered trial. After appraisal of the evidence of the witnesses and the documents produced on either side, the trial court had come to the conclusion of dismissing the claim of the plaintiff without costs. Aggrieved by the judgment and decree passed by the trial Court, the plaintiff had taken the matter before the First Appellate Court in A.S.No.65 of 2003. After hearing both parties, the First Appellate Court had decreed the suit filed by the plaintiff by reversing the judgment and decree passed by the trial Court. Aggrieved by such reversal judgment and decree passed by the First Appellate Court, the defendants have preferred the present appeal.;