Professional Documents
Culture Documents
IN THE CITY CIVIL COURT AT CHENNAI
Present: Tmt.G.Santhi, ML.,
XIV Assistant Judge
Tuesday, the 12th day of January 2016
O.S.No.4353/ 2015
G Krishnan,
rep. By his Power of Attorney Agent
K Chandra Kumar .. Plaintiff
Vs
Kalavathy .. Defendant
This suit coming on 04.01.2016 for final hearing before me
in the presence of M/s. G Vijayaraghavan & M Jayaseelan, Counsel
for the plaintiff and the defendant being called absent and set
exparte, on perusal of the records and documents, on hearing the
argument on plaintiff's side and having stood over for
consideration till this day, this court delivered the following :
JUDGMENT
This suit has been filed under Order VII, Rule 1 of CPC for
permanent injunction against the defendant restraining him or his
servants, agents from interfering or disturbing the peaceful
possession and enjoyment of the suit mentioned A B Schedule
property and for costs.
1. The precise of the plaint is as follows:
The suit “A” Schedule property was purchased by the
2
plaintiff's father R Ganesan, under sale deed dated 1.9.1962 in Plot
No.23, situated at Alamelu Mangapuram, comprised in Survey No.
255/1, at Perungalathur Village, Chengalpattu Taluk and
Kancheepuram District. Till his death on 25.1.1981 he was the
absolute owner of the property. After his death, the plaintiff is the
only son left behind him and the plaintiff is the absolute possession
and enjoyment of the same till this date.
The defendant is an utter stranger and she had been
manipulating and sot the sale deed in her favour in Document No.
1575/83 and the same is null and void and not acted upon it.
Recently the defendant lodged complaint with the Inspector of
Police, Peerkankaranai Police Station stating that the agent of th
plaintiff grabbing the said land purchased by her. For which, the
plaintiff constrained to approach this court by way of filing this suit
to get an order for permanant injunction against the defendant.
Hence the suit
To substantiate its case, the plaintiff has filed proof
affidavit and examined as PW1 and on her side documents i.e.
Ex.A1 to Ex.A7 marked. The plaint averments has been reiterated in
the proof affidavit of PW1.
Ex.A1 dt. 01.09.1962 is the Certified copy of the sale deed
in favour of the plaintiff's father, Ex.A2 dt. 29.05.2000 is the Certified
copy of the death certificate of plaintiff's father R Ganesh, Ex.A3 dt.
26.11.07 is the certified Copy of the Legalheirship Certificate, Ex.A4
is the certified Copy of the Encumbrance Certificate, Ex. A5 is the
Voters ID, Ex.A6 dt.25.5.15 is the certified copy of the General
3
Power of Attorney and Ex.A7 dt.30.5.15 Police complaint copy given
by the plaintiff's agent.
3. Though the defendant was remained exparte, it is the
duty of the court to see whether the allegations made in the suit as
against the defendants have been proved by the plaintiff through
oral and documentary evidence.
4. From the above, it is determined that the plaintiff has
proved the allegations made in the suit through oral and
documentary evidence.
5. In the result, the suit is decreed restraining the
defendant and his servants or agents from interfering or disturbing
the peaceful possession and enjoyment of the suit mentioned 'A',
' B' Schedule property with costs.
Pronounced by me in open court this the 12th day of
January 2016.
XIV Assistant Judge
Plaintiff Side Witness :
P.W.1 Th. K Chandra Kumar
Plaintiff Side Exhibits :
Ex.A1. 01.09.1962 Certified copy of the sale deed in favour of the
plaintiff's father,
Ex.A2. 29.05.2000 Certified copy of the death certificate of
plaintiff's father R Ganesh
Ex.A3. 26.11.07 Certified Copy of the Legalheirship Certificate
Ex.A4. Certified Copy of the Encumbrance Certificate
4
Ex.A5 Voters ID
Ex.A6. 25.5.15 Certified copy of the General Power of Attorney
Ex.A7. 30.5.15 Police complaint copy given by the plaintiff's
agent.
Defendants side witnesses and exhibits: N I L
XIV Assistant Judge