Chandrasekaran v. Rajeswari Ammal

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRASDated : 20.07.2009CoramThe Honourable Mr.Justice S.RAJESWARANA.S.No.1129 & 1130 of 2004Chandrasekaran ... Appellant in both the appeals(Plaintiff in O.S.No.11/99 34/2000) Vs.1. Rajeswari Ammal2. Kuppan, Power Agent of the first defendant Rajeswari Amman ... 1st & 2nd Respondent in both the appeals (Defendants in O.S.No.11/99)3. Thiyagarajan4. Nithyanandha Srinivasan5. Nagapooshanammal6. Shankari7. Hemavathy8. Loganathan9. Kangavalli10.Gopinathan11.Karunakaran12.Poorani... Respondents 3 to 12 in A.S.No.1130/04(Defendants 1 to 12 in O.S.34/2000) PRAYER IN A.S.No.1129 of 2004This Appeal has been filed under Sec.96 of C.P.C. against thejudgment and decree passed by the Additional District Judge, FastTrack Court No.1, Chengalput in O.S.No.11 of 1999 dated 09.10.2003.PRAYER IN A.S.No.1130 of 2004This Appeal has been filed under Sec.96 of C.P.C. against thejudgment and decree passed by the Additional District Judge, FastTrack Court No.1, Chengalput in O.S.No.34 of 2000 dated 09.10.2003. For Appellant in both A.S. : M/s.R.Manickavel https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ For Respondent-2 : Mr.S.V.Jayaramanin both A.S. Senior counsel for M/s.S.P.L.Palaniappa For Respondents : M/s.G.Jermiah & 4 to 12 in V.Kulasekaran A.S.No.1130/04 For Respondents : Mr.G.Jermiah 4 to 12 in & V.KulasekaranA.S.1130/04 *****COMMON JUDGMENTThe facts which are necessary for the purpose of disposing ofthe above two Appeals are as follows:2. For the sake of convenience, the parties are referred to asper their rankings in the suit.3. O.S.No.11 of 1999 was filed by the plaintiff,Chandrasekaran, for a permanent injunction restraining thedefendant in the suit, Tmt.Rajeswari, from in any way interferingwith the plaintiff's peaceful possession and enjoyment of the suitproperty by way of dispossessing him except under due process oflaw.4. According to the plaintiff in O.S.No.11 of 1999, he is theadopted son of Ganapathy Naicker and the first defendant in thesuit. The plaintiff's mother Parameswari was the sister toGanapathy Naicker. The parents of Ganapathy Naicker andParameswari were Pattammal and Srinivasulu Naicker. Parameswarihas two sons and the plaintiff is the younger son. The saidGanapathy Naicker and the plaintiff's mother were living in theproperties mentioned in the schedule with their family.5. According to the plaintiff, the suit property wasoriginally purchased by his grand-mother Pattammal under a Saledeed dated 2.11.1958 out of the amount received by her andGanapathy Naicker from the G.P.F. accumulations of SrinivasuluNaicker, the husband of Pattammal. Srinivasulu Naicker died on9.1.1958. From the date of purchase, the suit properties were inpossession and enjoyment of Pattammal and her son GanapathyNaicker. After the death of Pattammal, Ganapathy Naicker was inpossession and enjoyment of the same till his death. As theadopted son of Ganapathy Naicker, the plaintiff was also livingwith him in the property. The marriage of the plaintiff wasarranged and celebrated by Ganapathy Naicker only. After themarriage, the plaintiff was living separately with his family initem No.1 of the suit schedule property. According to theplaintiff, as Ganapathy Naicker was suffering from nervous disorderand as there was no possibility of getting any child, he wasadopted as his son. After the death of Pattammal, on 21.8.1973,the plaintiff's mother did not claim any share in her mother's https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ properties as her son (the plaintiff) was adopted by her brotherGanapathy Naicker. Further, there was a good relationship that wasmaintained by all the parties including the plaintiff's mother, herbrother and her brother's wife i.e. the defendant in the suit. 6. It is the further case of the plaintiff that GanapathyNaicker gave the house bearing door No.35A, Chinnamanikara streetabsolutely to him after the death of Pattammal (item No.1 of thesuit schedule property). During the lifetime of the plaintiff'smother, the defendant did not give any trouble and after the deathof the plaintiff's mother in July 1996, the defendant developedhostile attitude towards the plaintiff. She further attempted tosell the suit schedule properties to third parties by claimingthat the plaintiff is not the right person to claim and he has norights in the property. The defendant went to the extent ofcreating false documents and also to dispossess the plaintiff fromthe suit property. Therefore, the plaintiff sent a notice on25.04.1997 to the defendant, but, the defendant did not send anyreply even though notice was acknowledged by her. The plaintiffclaims that he has got half share in the suit property as theadopted son of the deceased Ganapathy Naicker. If the defendantalienates or creates documents encumbering the suit property, hisinterest would suffer. Hence, the plaintiff filed the suit inO.S.No.11 of 1999 for the above said relief.7. This suit was resisted by the defendant by filing a writtenstatement, wherein the defendant denied that the plaintiff is theadopted son of the defendant and her husband Ganapathy Naicker.According to the defendant, she and her husband Ganapathy Naickerwere living in Item No.2 of the suit property and the plaintiff'smother Parameswari was living as a tenant in item No.1 of the suitproperty. The defendant further stated that the suit property wasnot purchased from the G.P.F. accumulations of Srinivasulu Naickerby Pattammal. Pattammal purchased the property out of her ownfunds. The death benefits of Srinivasulu Naicker were utilised forthe welfare of Ganapathy Naicker. The defendant further claimedthat during her lifetime, Pattammal executed a registeredSettlement deed dated 13.7.1962 in favour of her son GanapathyNaicker in respect of the suit property. Pattammal had given herdaughter Parameswari in marriage to Venugopal Naicker with presentsand gifts and that is why Pattammal did not give any share in theproperty to her daughter. Pattammal expected her son GanapathyNaicker to have his own children and in anticipation of that, shesettled the suit property in the name of her son. The defendantfurther stated that the plaintiff has been living in item No.1 as atenant only after the demise of his mother and he has no title atall to item No.1 of the suit property. After the death ofParameswari, the plaintiff started claiming a right in theproperties and in fact he started keeping the rents collected fromthe tenants for himself and without handing over the same to thedefendant. Therefore, she objected to the plaintiff's conduct andasked him to vacate the item No.1 of the suit property. Onlythereafter, the plaintiff issued a notice on 25.4.1997 claiming the https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ right in the suit property, for which, the defendant issued a replydated 18.6.1997. As the defendant is the true owner of the suitschedule property, the relief of permanent injunction could neverbe granted to the plaintiff. Hence, she prayed for the dismissalof the suit.8. When O.S.No.11 of 1999 was pending on the file of theAdditional District Judge (Fast Track Court No.1), Chengalput, thevery same plaintiff filed another suit in O.S.No.34 of 2000 for therelief of partition and separate possession of the suit scheduleproperties into four equal shares by metes and bounds. In thelatter suit, 32 properties are shown in the schedule and propertiesNo.24 and 25 are the very same properties which are item Nos.1 and2 of the suit schedule property in the previous suit, namelyO.S.No.11 of 1999.9. In O.S.No.34 of 2000 also, the plaintiff narrated the factsin the same manner as was done in the previous suit. He furtherstated that in the properties standing in the name of SrinivasuluNaicker and Pattammal, their son Ganapathy Naicker and theirdaughter Parameswari Ammal (mother of the plaintiff), each wereentitled to half share. After the death of Ganapathy Naicker, hiswife Rajeswari Ammal is entitled to half share and the plaintiff isentitled to the other half share of the property inherited by hismother Parameswari Ammal. Therefore, according to the plaintiff,he is entitled to 3/4th share in all the properties mentioned inthe schedule and the defendant Rajeswari Ammal was entitled to1/4th share. As Rajeswari Ammal maintained a hostile attitude, itwas no longer possible for the plaintiff to continue the jointpossession. Therefore, he issued a notice on 16.12.1999 to thedefendants in the suit. The first defendant Rajeswari Ammal andthe third defendant Thiagarajan received the notice, but, the firstdefendant alone sent a reply on 22.01.2000 containing falseallegations. In fact, the first defendant stated that sheappointed one Kuppan, son of Govindarajan, as her Power Agent on18.01.1999 (the second defendant), in respect of the propertiesmentioned in 'C' schedule. She further alleged in the reply that Aand B schedule lands were sold away during the lifetime ofPattammal. Therefore, he filed the second suit in O.S.No.34 of2000 for partition and separate possession.10. Kuppan, the Power Agent of Rajeswari Ammal filed a writtenstatement wherein it was stated that Ganapathy Naicker alone wasthe heir of Srinivasulu Naicker. It was further stated thatPattammal purchased the suit 'C' schedule properties in her nameand out of her own funds by selling the jewels and other amountswhich were made available to her. Whatever money left behind byher husband were utilised by Pattammal for the medical treatment ofher son Ganapathy Naicker. Therefore, Pattammal was the absoluteowner of the suit 'C' schedule properties and she enjoyed theproperty in her own right. It was also denied that the plaintiffwas the adopted son of Ganapathy Naicker and there was no suchadoption at any point of time as claimed by the plaintiff. In thissuit also Rajeswari Ammal took the stand that the plaintiff's https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ mother was a tenant and thereafter, the plaintiff is residing inthe same house as a tenant. Since the plaintiff is working in thePolice Department, he used to threaten the first defendantRajeswari. It is further stated that Pattammal executed aregistered Settlement deed dated 13.7.1962 in respect of 'C'schedule properties in favour of Ganapathy Naicker and theSettlement deed was accepted and acted upon. It is clearly statedin the Settlement deed that in the event of no issues to GanapathyNaicker, he shall take the properties absolutely. Thus, GanapathyNaicker became the absolute owner of the 'C' schedule propertiesand and after his death, the first defendant Rajeswari Ammal becamethe absolute owner thereof. It was also claimed that A and Bschedule properties were also in possession and enjoyment ofPattammal as her absolute properties. After her death, her sonGanapathy Naicker became the legal heir. Thereafter, the firstdefendant became the owner and she is in possession and enjoymentof almost all the items except certain items which she sold away tothird parties. The plaintiff is not entitled to any share and hisclaim for 3/4th share is not correct. Hence, he prayed for thedismissal of the suit for partition with cost.11. Defendants 4 and 5 have also filed a written statementwherein it was stated that Srinivasulu Naicker and MunuswamyNaicker constituted a joint family and there was no partition amongthem at any point of time. Srinivasulu Naicker died in 1955 beforethe Hindu Succession Act 1956 came into force. So on the death ofSrinivasulu Naicker neither Pattammal, his wife nor Parameswari hisdaughter are entitled to any share. The son of Srinivasulu Naickernamely Ganapathy Naicker alone was the only heir of his fatherSrinivasulu Naicker who constituted a joint family with his fatherSrinivasulu Naicker and his paternal uncle Munuswamy Naicker.After the death of Srinivasulu Naicker, the joint family continuedconsisting of Ganapathy Naicker and Munusamy Naicker. MunuswamyNaicker died in the year 1989 leaving behind him his widowNagabushana Ammal, the 5th defendant and his children, namely thedefendants 4, 6 to 12. Ganapathy Naicker died in the year 1991 andthereafter his only heir and widow namely the first defendantRajeswari Ammal and the defendants 4 to 12 continued the jointfamily. The first defendant is entitled to half share and theremaining half share belongs to the defendants 4 to 12. They alsomaintained the stand that the plaintiff is not at all the adoptedson of Ganapathy Naicker and he cannot claim any share in respectof the joint family properties. The defendants 4 and 5 furthercontend that Pattammal had no means to purchase 'C' scheduleproperties and these properties were also purchased out of theincome of the joint family properties in the name of Pattammal.That is why Pattammal never claimed that she is the owner of 'C'schedule properties during her lifetime. It is also a joint familyproperty which cannot be given by Ganapathy Naicker to theplaintiff and the plaintiff is only in permissive occupation of aportion of the building bearing door No.35A, Chinnamanikara Street,Chengalput as he is a close relative of the defendants 1, 4 to 12.Hence, defendants 4 and 5 prayed for a preliminary decree forpartition and separate possession of these defendants and https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ defendants 6 to 12 in respect of their half share in the suitproperties.12. This statement filed by the defendants 4 and 5 wereadopted by defendants 6 to 12.13.An additional written statement was also filed by thedefendants 1 and 2 reiterating their earlier stand.14. The third defendant was set ex-parte as he did not comeforward to contest the suit.15. Both the suit namely, O.S.No.11 of 1999 and O.S.No.34 of2000 were taken together by the trial Judge and the followingissues were framed by him in O.S.No.34 of 2000;1. Whether the 'C' schedule properties standing in the name ofPattammal are joint family properties ?2.Whether the plaintiff is the adopted son of GanapathyNaicker ?3.Whether the plaintiff's mother Parameswari Ammal is a heir ofSrinivasulu Naicker ?4.Whether the plaintiff is enjoying the house property bearingdoor No.35A, Chinnamanikara street, Chengalput as a permissiveoccupant ?5.What is the share of the plaintiff in the suit scheduleproperty ?6.Whether the suit is bad on the ground that there was already apartial partition ?7.What other reliefs that are available to the plaintiff?16. The trial court framed the following issues in O.S.No.11of 1999:1.Whether the plaintiff is in possession of the suit scheduleproperty ?2.Whether the plaintiff is entitled to a decree of permanentinjunction as prayed for ?3.To what other reliefs, the plaintiff is entitled to?17. A memo was filed by the parties to the suit to try boththe suits together and accordingly, it was tried together by thetrial court. The evidence let in by the parties in O.S.No.34 of2000 was also considered for the suit in O.S.No.11 of 1999.18. Exhibits A1 to A53 were marked on the side of theplaintiff and Exhibits B1 to B44 were marked on the side of the https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ defendants. The plaintiff was examined as P.W.1 and two otherwitnesses were examined as P.W.2 and P.W.3. The defendantRajeswari Ammal was examined as D.W.1 and D5 was examined as D.W.2.19. While considering the issue No.2, in O.S.No.34 of 2000,the trial court came to the conclusion that it was not proved bythe plaintiff that he was the adopted son of Ganapathy Naicker.20. While considering the issue No.1, in O.S.No.34 of 2000,the trial court found that items No.24 and 25 of 'C' scheduleproperties are the absolute properties of the first defendantRajeswari Ammal and therefore, they are not the joint familyproperties.21. Issue No.4, in O.S.No.34 of 2000 and issue No.1 inO.S.No.11 of 1999 were tried together by the trial court and it washeld that the plaintiff enjoyed the property bearing Door No.35A,as a permissive occupant and he is not in possession of theproperty bearing door No.207, Anna Nagar.22. While considering the issue No.3 in O.S.No.34 of 2000, thetrial court held that Parameswari Ammal, the mother of theplaintiff is a heir of Srinivasulu Naicker.23. While considering the issue No.5, in O.S.No.34 of 2000,the trial court rendered a finding that the plaintiff is entitledto a half share in all the properties except item Nos.24 and 25 in'C' Schedule property which are the absolute properties of thefirst defendant Rajeswari Ammal.24. While considering issue No.6 in O.S.No.34 of 2000, thetrial court found that there was no proof for prior partition andtherefore, the suit was not affected in any way.25. Consequently, while considering the issue No.7, inO.S.No.34 of 2000, the trial court held that excepting item Nos.24and 25 in 'C' Schedule property, the plaintiff and the defendants 4to 12 together are entitled to equal shares in the otherproperties.26. In so far as considering issue No.2 in O.S.No.11 of 1999,the trial court held that the plaintiff is not entitled to reliefof permanent injunction and accordingly, the suit was dismissed inits entirety.27. Aggrieved by the common judgment of the trial court, dated9.10.2003, the plaintiff in both the suits filed A.S. No.1129 of2004 and A.S.No.1130 of 2004.28. A.S.No.1129 of 2004 was filed against the dismissal ofO.S.No.11 of 1999 and A.S.No.1130 of 2004 was filed against thejudgment and decree in O.S.No.34 of 2000 in so far as it relates toitem Nos.24 and 25 of the 'C' schedule properties, which the trialcourt held that they were not available for partition as Rajeswari https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ Ammal is the absolute owner of the property.29. Heard the learned counsel for the appellant, Thiru S.V.Jeyaraman, the learned Senior counsel for R1 and R2 and the learnedcounsel for R4 to R12.30. The learned counsel for the appellant submits that neitherthe first respondent nor the respondents 4 to 12 filed any appealagainst the judgment of the trial court. Therefore, the finding ofthe trial court that except item Nos.24 and 25 of the 'C' scheduleproperty, all other items are ancestral properties has becomefinal. According to the learned counsel for the appellant, itemNo.24 and 25 of the 'C' Schedule properties are also joint familyproperties and the evidence let in by the parties would prove thesame. He further pointed out that there was enough evidence toprove that the plaintiff is the adopted son of Ganapathy Naickerand therefore, the findings of the trial court to the contrary areto be interfered with. Hence, the learned counsel contended thatin so far as O.S.No.34 of 2000 is concerned, the trial court oughtnot to have held that items No.24 and 25 of 'C' Schedule propertiesare the absolute properties of Rajeswari Ammal.31. The learned counsel for the appellant further argued thatin so far as O.S.No.11 of 1999 is concerned, the trial court hasgone beyond the pleadings to render a finding that the deceasedParameswari Ammal and her son the plaintiff, were only permissiveoccupants. Once it was found that the plaintiff has been in legalpossession and enjoyment of the suit properties, the trial courtought to have granted a permanent injunction to protect his lawfulpossession. Hence, the learned counsel prayed for allowing boththe appeals.32. Per contra, the learned Senior counsel for the respondents1 and 2 submits that the plaintiff has miserably failed to provewith adequate evidence that he is the adopted son of GanapathyNaicker. He submitted that the very act of giving and takingadoption as contemplated under Sec.11(vi) of the Hindu Adoptionsand Maintenance Act 1956 is very much missing and therefore theplaintiff can never claim that he is the adopted son of GanapathyNaicker. In support of this submission, the learned Senior counselrelied on a decision of this Court reported in CDJ 2007 MHC 566(V.K.Jaishankar & antoher Vs G.Nambirajan & others).33. The learned Senior counsel further points out that if theevidence adduced on behalf of the first defendant Rajeswari Ammalis considered in proper perspective, it will prove beyond doubtthat item Nos.24 and 25 of the 'C' Schedule properties are theabsolute properties of the first defendant.34. He further added that once it is proved that item Nos.24and 25 of the 'C' schedule properties belong to the first defendantabsolutely, the possession of the plaintiff is only permissive andno injunction could be granted against her as prayed for by theplaintiff. Hence, he prayed for the dismissal of both the appeals. https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/

35. I have considered the rival submissions carefully withregard to facts and the citation.36. It is not in dispute that it is only the plaintiff who wasaggrieved by the common judgment of the trial court and no appealnor cross appeal was filed by the defendants. If that being so,thefollowing issues alone are arising for consideration in these twofirst appeals.1.Whether item Nos.24 and 25 of the 'C' schedule propertiesabsolutely belong to the late Pattammal ?2.Whether item Nos.24 and 25 of the 'C' Schedule properties arealso available for partition ?3.Whether the plaintiff has proved his case that he is theadopted son of Ganapathy Naicker ?4.Whether the plaintiff is entitled to the relief of permanentinjunction against the defendant Rajeswari Ammal ?37. Issue Nos.1 and 2: The case of the plaintiff is that afterthe death of Srinivasulu Naicker, his wife Pattammal purchased itemNos.24 and 25 of the 'C' Schedule properties under a registeredsale deed dated 2.11.1958 out of the funds and the G.P.F.accumulations of Srinivasulu Naicker. The property was purchasedfor the benefit of the joint family. This was contended by thedefendant Rajeswari Ammal by stating that Pattammal purchased thesuit 'C' Schedule property out of her own funds which were obtainedby sale of the house property, the jewels and other amounts thatwere made available to her. It is further stated that the fundsleft behind by her husband Srinivasulu Naicker were utilised forthe medical treatment of her son Ganapathy Naicker. Hence,according to the defendant Rajeswari Ammal, Pattammal was theabsolute owner of the property.38. It is not in dispute and in fact it is an admitted factthat the house properties shown as item Nos.24 and 25 in the 'C'Schedule properties were purchased in the name of Pattammal. Whenit was claimed by the plaintiff that they were also purchased outof the family income and therefore, they were also joint familyproperties. It was shown that these two properties were alreadysettled by Pattammal in favour of Ganapathy Naicker when Pattammalherself was very much alive. Ex.B1 is the sale deed dated2.11.1958 executed by one Kamakshi Ammal and others in favour ofPattammal. Ex.B2 is the Settlement Deed dated 13.7.1962 executedby Pattammal in favour of Ganapathy Naicker. The trial court hasconsidered both these two documents and found from the sale deed(Ex.B1) that the two house properties were purchased by Pattammalon 2.11.1958 for a sum of Rs.8,400/- by selling her jewels. It wasalso found by the trial Court from the Settlement Deed (Ex.B2) thatthe amount received by Pattammal from the G.P.F. accumulations wasspent for the treatment of Ganapathy Naicker. It was furtherstated in the Settlement Deed that these two properties were https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ purchased out of her own funds and if no children were born toGanapathy Naicker, then Ganapathy Naicker was entitled to theproperty absolutely. In the light of the above evidence, the trialcourt concluded that after the death of Ganapathy Naicker, theabsolute property of Ganapathy Naicker was succeeded to by hiswife, the defendant Rajeswari Ammal. While considering the claimof the plaintiff that the plaintiff's mother was also a heir ofPattammal and therefore, she was also entitled to a share in thesetwo properties, the trial court found from the Settlement Deeditself that Pattammal did not give any share in the property to theplaintiff's mother as her marriage was celebrated in a grand mannerand therefore, she settled the property exclusively in the name ofGanapathy Naicker out of love and affection.39. After going through the evidence let in, in this regardand the averments made in the plaint and the written statement, Iam of the considered view that the trial court has correctlydecided this issue by holding that item Nos.24 and 25 of the 'C'Schedule properties are the absolute properties of Pattammal onlyand therefore, they are not joint family properties.40. Thus, Issues No.1 and 2 are answered against theappellants by confirming the findings of the trial court.41. Issue No.3 : It is the case of the plaintiff that he isthe adopted son of Ganapathy Naicker. Though an averment was madein this regard very casually by the plaintiff, the requisiteevidence was not let in, in support of this averment. The fact ofadoption must be proved in the same way as any other fact.However, the evidence in support of an adoption must be sufficientto satisfy the onus that rests heavily upon any person who seeks todisplace the natural succession by alleging an adoption. It issettled law that the burden lies heavily upon the person to provethe factum of adoption and its validity.42. That apart, the very act of giving and taking adoptionshould be pleaded and proved by the person claiming adoption.43. In C.D.J. 2007 MHC 566 (cited supra), this court afterreferring to Sec.11(vi) of the Hindu Adoptions and Maintenance Act1956, held that to prove valid adoption under Hindu Law, it wouldbe necessary to bring on record that there had been an actualgiving and taking ceremony. Giving and taking of the child issiniquo non or the mandatory requirement for a valid adoption. Ifthe facts of the present case, the averments made in the plaint andthe evidence let in, are considered in proper perspective, thattoo, in the light of the above judgment, I have no hesitation inholding that the plaintiff has miserably failed to prove that he isthe adopted son of Ganapathy Naicker. Therefore, this issue isalso answered against the appellant by confirming the findings ofthe trial court.44. Issue No.4 : I have already confirmed the findings of thetrial court that item Nos.24 and 25 of the properties are the self https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ acquired properties of Pattammal and therefore they are notavailable for partition. Further, there is no evidence at all toprove the contention of the plaintiff that item Nos.24 and 25 ofthe 'C' Schedule properties were given absolutely to the plaintiffby Ganapathy Naicker. Ex.A14 to Ex.A16 are the receipts for Housetax paid for the house bearing door No.35A Chinnamanikara Street,Chengalput and they are standing in the name of Pattammal. Ex.A18to Ex.A24 are also the House tax receipts, in which, both theplaintiff and the defendant Rajeswari Ammal's names were shown.The bills issued by the Electricity Board i.e. Ex.A40 to Ex.A46were also in the name of Pattammal. Excepting these documents, noother document was filed by the plaintiff to prove his case thatitem Nos.24 and 25 of the 'C' Schedule properties were given to himby Ganapathy Naicker absolutely. Similarly, the plaintiff was notable to establish that he has any independent right in item No.25of the 'C' schedule property. In some of the House tax receipts,Pattammal's name was found (Ex.A11 to A13 and Ex.A17) and in someof the House tax receipts, the defendant Rajeswari's name was foundi.e. Ex.A25. Though in some of the House Tax receipts, theplaintiff's name was also found, these House tax receipts are notsufficient evidence to prove the case of the plaintiff that itemNos.24 and 25 of the properties are absolutely owned by him. Insuch circumstances, the only possible and inevitable conclusionthat could be arrived at is that, the plaintiff's possession ofitem No.24 of the 'C' Schedule property is only permissible andtherefore, he is not entitled to any decree of permanent injunctionas prayed for by him against the defendant Rajeswari Ammal. Thus,this issue is also decided against the appellant and the findingsof the trial court are upheld.45. In the result, I do not find any merits in both theappeals and accordingly they are dismissed, by confirming thecommon judgment and decree of the trial court. Considering theclose relationship of the parties, the above appeals are dismissedwithout any cost.Sd/Asst.Registrar/true copy/Sub Asst.RegistrarTo1. The Additional District Judge, (Fast Track Court No.I) Chengalput2. The Section Officer, VR Section, High Court, Madras. https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ 2 ccs To Mr.R.Manickavel, Advocate, SR.324722 ccs To Mr.S.P.L.Palaniappa, Advocate, SR.324121 cc To Mr.G.Jeremiah, Advocate, SR.33357A.S.No.1129 & 1130 of 2004GV(CO)SRA(29/7/2009)