Scribd
Upload
19 views2 pages

Rasipuram

The plaintiffs, Nalliyappan and another, filed a suit against the defendants, Periyasamy and another, seeking a Permanent Injunction regarding a pathway to their property, which they claim was established in a partition deed. The defendants deny the plaintiffs' claims, asserting that the plaintiffs' sketch is fabricated and that the right to the pathway does not belong to them based on historical property transactions. Additionally, the defendants reference a prior legal case that established their rights against the plaintiffs, arguing that the current suit is an attempt to disrupt their ownership and cause distress.

Uploaded by

Nethra Ashok
Copyright
© © All Rights Reserved
We take content rights seriously. If you suspect this is your content, claim it here.
Available Formats
Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online on Scribd
19 views2 pages

Rasipuram

The plaintiffs, Nalliyappan and another, filed a suit against the defendants, Periyasamy and another, seeking a Permanent Injunction regarding a pathway to their property, which they claim was established in a partition deed. The defendants deny the plaintiffs' claims, asserting that the plaintiffs' sketch is fabricated and that the right to the pathway does not belong to them based on historical property transactions. Additionally, the defendants reference a prior legal case that established their rights against the plaintiffs, arguing that the current suit is an attempt to disrupt their ownership and cause distress.

Uploaded by

Nethra Ashok
Copyright
© © All Rights Reserved
We take content rights seriously. If you suspect this is your content, claim it here.
Available Formats
Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online on Scribd
You are on page 1/ 2

IN THE COURT OF THE DISTRICT MUNSIF, RASIPURAM

O.S.No. 10 of 2021

Nalliyappan
And another …Plaintiff

-Vs-
Periyasamy and
Another …Defendants

WRITTEN ARGUMENTS SUBMITTED BY THE DEFENDANTS

Gist of the Plaint:

The suit was filed by the plaintiffs against the defendants for
the relief of Permanent Injunction in the Suit property. The Plaintiffs
are the brothers. Further, it is stated in the Plaint that B schedule
property was alotted to first plaintiff and C schedule property was
alotted to 2nd plaintiff in the partition deed executed between them on
05.09.2019. Also pleaded that the pathway for the suit property is
mentioned as per Document 1991 book 194 from pages 254 to 268 in
the partition deed. further attached the rough sketch showing the
Property of plaintiff’s and Defendnant’s as P1,P2 and D1,D2 and showing
the pathway as “X”. and added that during the year of 1991 the
Plaintiff’s father had got a property by way of partition on 11.12.1991 in
which the pathway exists and tehreafter the same has been partitioned
between the plaintiff’s and in enjoing the same. While so, the
defeandants who are herein are having a property adjacent to the land
of the platinff and hence, on 15.10.2020 tried to cause hindrance to the
Plaintiff’s in using the pathway with the help of their influence.

Gist of the Written Statement

The Defendants have vehemently denied all those


contentions alleged by the plaintiff. The suit filed by the plaintiff is not
maintenable for the reasons stated in the following.
1. The Rough Sketch map given by the Plaintiff is not an authentic one as
it is created by them in their favor falsely with an unlawful intention.
2. The Grandfather of the Plaintiff one Suppugounder purchased the
property in the year of 1985 and claiming that it also includes the right
to pathway, but the right to pathway I.e. 1/3 has been falsley entered in
the sale deed.

3. Originally the suit property belongs to one Karakaatan. During the


year of 1979 the ancestors of the defedants purchased the property in
their favor. Further, the said had sold the rest of the lands to one
Arumugam and Ramasamy Nadar. Further, the agreement was executed
between the Ancestor of the defendants I.e. One Nallammal , rumugam
and Ramasamy Nadar exclusively for the rights of pathway only for them
and “if the same has been sold to them , the right of pathway would
not be included”.Breaching the same, the grandfather of the Plaintiff oe
Suppugounder had purchased the property from the Ramasamy Nadar
and Arumugam and it does not include the right to pathway. Further,
the said agrrement entered between One Nallammal , Arumugam and
Ramasamy Nadar is regsited as Doc.No.2731/1981. further, in the same
partition through which the Plantiff’s are claiming their rights over the
pathway in the Suit property I.e. as per 1991 deed, the separate
pathway has been mentioned. But the plaitinff’s claiming the pathway
which belongs exclusiviely to the defendants is illegal and unlawful.

4. Further, the defendants had already filed a suit In O.S.No. 153 of


1986 and got their rights agaisnt the plaintiffs herein after a long legal
battle in R.E.P. however, even after nearly 30 years of the same, the
palitinff’s are creating a disturbance and nuisance over the false claim to
the Suit Property only to create mental agony and to attain wrongful
gain.

You might also like