IN THE COURT OF THE SUB-ORDINATE JUDGE OF

VIRUDHUNAGAR

O.S.No. 50 / 2018

Between
Mrs.BharathaDevi …Plaintiff

And
1. Padmavathi
2. The Joint-Sub-Registrar No.I
Virudhunagar …Defendants

PLAINT FILED ON BEHALF OF THE PLAINTIFF ABOVE

NAMED UNDER ORDER 7 RULE 1 C.P.C

I. Address of the Plaintiff

S.Bharathadevi wife of Soundararajan, Hindu, aged 68

years and residing at 70-D, 2nd street, Kamarajarpuram,
Thirumangalam, Madurai district
The address for service of summons, notices, Processes
on the plaintiff is as stated above and that of their counsels
Thiru R.Padmanaban B.A.,B.L., M.Singaraja B.A.,B.L.,
Advocates 12-R, Arisikadai Nandavanam Complex, Madurai
road, Virudhunagar.

II. Address of the Defendants

1. N.Padmavathy wife of Narayanan, Hindu, aged about 70 years
and residing at Keppilingampatti Hamlet, PeriaPerali village,
Virudhunagar-626109, Virudhunagar district
2. The Joint-Sub-Registrar No.I, Virudhunagar, Office of the Sub-
registrar, Katcherry Road, Virudhunagar
The address for services of summons, notices,
Processes on the defendants are as stated above.
 III. The suit properties are situated at Rosalpatti village,
Virudhunagar Taluk within the jurisdiction of this Hon’ble
Court.

IV. The schedule property originally belonged to one

Narayanareddiar who had two wives namely 1.Nagammal and
2.Seethammal out of which the said Seethammal had no issues.
The said Nagammal and Seethammal while they were alive, had
entered into a partition through a registered partition deed
No.319/1977 dated 19.03.1977 and thereafter they were in
separate possession of their respective shares.

V. Further the said Seethammal had died intestate on 09.11.1993

leaving the children of Nagammal as her legal heirs entitled to
succeed to her estate including the suit property. Thereafter in the
year 1994 the said Nagammal had also died leaving behind her
children namely 1.Srirengammal, 2.Renganayaki, 3.Padmavathy
(Defendant), 4.Andal and 5.Bharathadevi(Plaintiff). The said
Srirengammal had died leaving behind her two daughters namely
Jothi and another Pappa(Died). The said Renganayaki also died
leaving behind her children namely 1.Nambi, 2.Jeyachandran
3.Vijaya, 4. Madhavan and 5.Bakthavatsalam.

VI. Therefore the legal heirs who were in joint possession of the
properties of Narayanareddiar, Nagammal and Seethammal had
orally effected partition of the joint family properties including the
suit property and thereafter accepting the same reduced it into
writing before a Notary Public on 16.05.2000. This partition
acknowledgment deed before Notary public was effected for
Mutation purpose. Further the said Padmavathy was also a party
to the said partition.

VII. It is humbly submitted that the schedule property was allotted

to the share of the plaintiff and the plaintiff alone is in absolute and
separate possession and enjoyment of the same thereafter without
any let or hindrance. In the meanwhile the 1st defendant who is
near the suit properties taking advantage of the plaintiff residing in
the nearby district, had fraudulently obtained patta to the suit
property in her name without the knowledge of this plaintiff. The
plaintiff immediately after getting knowledge of the same had
raised her objections with the Tahsildar Virudhunagar for
cancelling the patta issued in the name of the defendant and the
same is still pending for enquiry before the RDO Aruppukkottai. It
is humbly submitted that the Patta obtained behind the back of this
plaintiff shall not bind the right of the plaintiff over the schedule
property and also the same shall not confer any right or title to the
1st defendant over the schedule property.

VIII. The 1st defendant has no right whatsoever over the schedule
mentioned property, since the same is the absolute property of this
plaintiff. Meanwhile in the 1st week of last week of April 2018 the
1st defendant attempted to encroach upon the schedule property
with the help of her henchmen which the plaintiff prevented with
the help of elders. While leaving the place the 1 st defendant
propagated that she would create encumbrance over the suit
property and hence the plaintiff had given a protest petition with
the 2nd defendant seeking not to register any document presented
by the defendant regarding the suit property. Unfortunately the 2 nd
defendant on 20.07.2018 when this plaintiff personally approached
him to verify what action has been taken on the protest petition,
had advised the plaintiff to approach the civil court and had not
heeded the words of this plaintiff. Further the plaintiff has been
made to understand on 20.07.2018 that the 1st defendant had
approached the 2nd defendant to create encumbrance over the suit
property.

IX. The plaintiff is made to understand that the 1 st defendant with

an ulterior motive to swindle off the plaintiff’s property and also
with an oblique motive to extract money is attempting to disturb
the plaintiff’s enjoyment of the suit property without any right
whatsoever over the suit property. The 1st defendant has no right to
encumber the schedule property which is the absolute property of
the plaintiff. The 1st defendant is attempting to encumber the suit
property with the 2nd defendant herein. Therefore the 2nd defendant
is added as a formal party to the suit.

X. The 1st defendant is acting unlawfully at the instigation of some

vested interests only with an ulterior motive to swindle off the
plaintiff’s property. The 1st defendant is estopped from doing so
and also has no right to do so after she had entered into a partition
which has been subsequently reduced into writing on 19.05.2000.
The act of the 1st defendant is highly illegal and unlawful. Further
the 1st defendant is attempting to encumber the suit property based
upon Sham and nominal fabricated documents which would cause
irreparable injury to the plaintiff. The act of the 1st defendant could
be prevented only by the Order of this Hon’ble Court. Hence the
plaintiff has no other option except to come forward with this suit
seeking an order of declaration and permanent Injunction.

XI. Further since the 1st defendant is attempting to create fabricated

documents with the 2nd defendant, the 2nd defendant has been added
as a formal and necessary party to the suit. The 2 nd defendant is a
government body, but due to the urgency of the case, the statutory
notice under section 80 C.P.C could not be issued. Hence a
separate petition to dispense with the statutory notice has been
filed along with the suit.

XII. The plaintiff values the suit relief (a) at Rs.4,82,400/- for the
purpose of court fees and jurisdiction and court fee on half of the
market value i.e., Rs.2,41,200/- and has paid a sum of Rs.7,236/-
as court fees under Section 25 (b) of the Tamilnadu Court fees and
suits valuation Act 1955 and relief (b) at Rs.1,000/- for the purpose
of court fees and jurisdiction and has paid a sum of Rs.30.00 as
court fees under Section 27 (c) of the Tamilnadu Court fees and
suits valuation Act 1955 and in total had paid a sum of Rs.7,266.50
as Court fees.

XIII. The cause of action for the suit arose on when the suit
schedule property belonged to the said NarayanaReddiar and
thereafter to his 2nd wife Seethammal by way of a registered
partition deed dated 19.03.1977; and on 09.11.1993 when the said
Seethammal died intestate leaving behind the children of
Nagammal as her legal heirs entitled to succeed to her estate
including the suit property; and on 16.05.2000 when the legal heirs
of Nagammal and Seethammal had entered into a partition
acknowledgment deed before a Notary Public thereby affirming
the oral partition among themselves in which the suit property was
allotted to the share of the plaintiff; and thereafter on all
subsequent dates when the plaintiff is in enjoyment and possession
of the suit property; and in the 1st week of April 2018 when the 1st
defendant attempted to encroach upon the suit property which the
plaintiff prevented; and on 20.07.2018 when the 1st defendant
again had attempted to encroach upon the suit property which the
plaintiff had prevented with the help of the elders; and on all
subsequent dates when the 1st defendant attempted to create sham
and nominal documents with an intent to cause injury to the
plaintiff at Rosalpatti village, Virudhunagar Taluk within the
jurisdiction of this Hon’ble Court.

Therefore it is prayed that this Hon’ble Court may be

Pleased to pass a judgment and decree in favour of the plaintiffs;

a) Declaring that the plaintiff is the absolute owner of the

schedule mentioned property and consequently Passing an
Order of permanent Injunction restraining the 1 st defendant,
her men and agents from interfering with the plaintiff’s
peaceful enjoyment and possession of the suit property; and

b) Passing an order of permanent Injunction restraining the 1 st

defendant, her men and agents from any way creating any
encumbrance over the suit property;

c) Directing the defendants to pay the costs of this action; and

d) To grant such other reliefs that this Hon’ble Court deems fit
and proper in the circumstances of this case and thus render
justice.

Advocate. Plaintiff
I, the plaintiff herein do hereby declare that what all stated
supra are true and correct to the best of my knowledge and intoken
thereof I have signed at Virudhunagar on 24-07-2018.

Plaintiff
 SCHEDULE OF PROPERTY

In Virudhunagar Registration District, Virudhunagar Joint

Sub-Registrar Office No.1, Virudhunagar Taluk, Rosalpatti village,
in Old Patta No.199 in survey No.40/2B out of the total extent of 1
Acre 53 Cents i.e., 0.62.0 Hectare on the eastern side 1 Acre 20
Cents with the following four boundaries:
North : Chinnamooppanpatti village boundary
South : Lands of Alagarsamy Reddiar
East : Lands of Mrs.Andal
West : Lands of Padmavathy

Advocate. Plaintiff
I, the plaintiff herein do hereby declare that what all stated
supra are true and correct to the best of my knowledge and intoken
thereof I have signed at Virudhunagar on 06-08-2018.

Plaintiff
 IN THE COURT OF THE SUB-ORDINATE JUDGE OF
VIRUDHUNAGAR

O.S.No. / 2018

Between
Mrs.Bharathadevi …Plaintiff

And
1. Padmavathi
2. The Joint-Sub-Registrar No.I
Virudhunagar …Defendants

LIST OF DOCUMENTS FILED ON BEHALF OF THE PLAINTIFF

ABOVE NAMED UNDER ORDER 7 RULE 14 C.P.C

1. 19.03.1977 Partition deed No.319/1977 SRO copy

2. 10.06.2016 Death Certificate of Seethammal True Copy

3. 19.05.2000 Deed evidencing oral Partition True Copy

4. 14.04.2018 Notice through Paper Publication Original

5. 16.04.2018 Petition filed with the District Collector

& RDO Aruppukkottai with Receipt
from Collector office True Copy

Advocate
 IN THE COURT OF THE
SUB-ORDINATE JUDGE

VIRUDHUNAGAR

O.S.No. /2018

Plaintiff
Bharathadevi

------------------------------
Plaint under Order 7
Rule1CPC
--------------------------------

Advocates
R.Padmanaban B.A,B.L,
Ms 23/1999

M.Singaraja B.A.,B.L.

Defendants

Padmavathy & another