T. BANUMATHY, M.A.B.L., Advocate Civil Criminal & Service Matters Civil Criminal & Service Matters CAT/CHENNAI HIGH COURT /MADURAIL DISTRICT COURTS/TRICHY ee ‘RPAD’ To, _ . Dr. S. Vineeth, IAS The District Collector, Tiruppur District Tirappur 2. Mr. T.P Jai Beam The District Revenue Officer Tiruppur District Tiruppur 3, Mr. G. ShashankSai, IPS. |; Superintendent of Police, 7 Tiruppur Bistrict ‘Tiruppur 4. Mrs. S. Sowmya, IPS, ‘ ‘The Deputy Superintendent of Police, Office at: Chamber No: 75, Additional Law Chambers, High Court Campus, Chennai And ; i No.6, CSI, Complex, Puthur, Trichy-37 Cell:94431 22860, Dated: 4- | 10-2022 ‘i : eres t eet caput atinwa yo Beis SE eeePalladamTaluk, ‘Tiruppur District Palladam 5, Mr. B. Manikandan, oe The Inspector of Police, Palladam Police Station, Palladam 6. Mr. V. Pandarinathan, ‘The Revenue Divisional Officer, Palladam Revenue Division, Palladam 7 7. Mr. C. Nandagopal, ‘The Thasildhar PalladamTaluk ‘Tiruppur District 8. Mrs. Suganya, : : { The Village Administrative Officer Vadugapalayam Village, Vadugapalayam,| "| PalladamTaluk, ' Tiruppur District 1 ' i it rl i it a 9. P. Senthilkumar, | S/oPalanisamy, «| No: 30/1, Second Street, Amarjothiponnagar, | Rakkiyapalayam, { \ | Kangayam Road,' Tirupur South Circle, Tirupur District, . ,Tirupur-641606 ‘ Sir/ Madam, | t | Subject: Contempt Notice in respect of Writ Petition No: 28240/2021, Order Dated 7-09-2022 passed by the Hon’ble High Court of Judicature at Madras. Ref: 1. Copy of the Order Dated 7-09-2022 in WP No: 28240/2021 i 2. Copy of the Order in Cri op No: 28807/2019 passed by the Hon’ble High Court of Judicature at Madras U 3. Copy of the Order passed in W.P No: 4736/2021 passed by ithe Hon’ble High Court of Judicature at Madras. sl 4. Copy of the Plaint in ols i Wo: 32/2019 on} he file of IT Additional District Judge, Tiruppur.| ut 5. Copy of the|Plaiat! ‘0.8 No: 431/2022 ‘and LA No: 1/2022 on the file of Il Additional District ander Tippee Hi VadugapalayamPudur, P._; Vadugapalayam . '| Village,* PalladamTaluk, Tiruppur District, I am issuing this legal t notice to you to the following effects: My client is the present owner in, possession and enjoyment of his properties situated in Survey Nos: 54/2, 263/2, 263/4‘and 267 for a total extent of 13.67 acres at, Vadugapalayam,} Village, PalladamTaluk, Tiruppur District. ‘I My client obtained loan from usurious and notorious: money lenders of K.Subramanian and his son A.S.?radeep and hejexecuted sale deeds in their names. But the possession of the properties is with my client. After repayment of the loan amount with: they have not executed sale decds in my client’s name, ‘ claimed crores of rupees towards interest. My client's vig pemely Gandhimathy, daughters namely Saxhritay, minor H eC and against my client as well 3 ag the finariciers K.Subrem son A.S.Pradeep beforé the Hon'ble District Judge, —- grant - a a partition decree partitioning ‘the suit’ property into 4 equal shares il in metes and bounds and allot % shares to them for their|separate | a possession and ownership! 1 7 In the meanwhile, the BEove “a K.Subramanian andijiiis sonenjoyment ‘of the’ suit property with the ‘assistance “of the police authorities. The above said usurious moneylenders and financiers KSubramanian and his son AS.Pradeep filed |crLOP. No.28807/2019 before the Hon’ble High Court of Judicature at Madras to grant adequate police protection to them to! put up fencing around the suit properties. The Hon’ble High Court dismissed the above petition on the basis thiat the 0.S.No/$2/2019 is pending before the Hon’bleDistrict Judge, Tirupur in respect of e the properties. . i is Again, the above said usurious moneylenders and financiers K.Subramanian and his son A. $.1 Pradeep fi filed W.P. Writ Peli ion No: 4736/2021, before the Hon'ble High Court of Judicature at ‘Madras seeking, police protection ts put up fencing i in the suit propett i r. This Writ Petition was also disppied of. They are trying to enter | pen cee BEES ee client’s properties to lake forcible eee in illegal ne and means and they could nat get favorable orders from “ne un fi High Court of Judicathre at Madras to|put up fencing. Hen were virtually out of pieonron of moto ’s properties. | | \ Thereafter, Mr. P. Senthillkumar obtained sale deeds in 7 client’s properties, but bel not able to. get possessiol properties. Therefore with | a malafide intention to take! i | i 1possession and enjoyment ‘of the ‘above “properties, he ‘filed Writ Petition No: 28240/2021 before the Hon’ble High Court of Judicature at Madras, to direct the Inspector of Police, Palladam Police Station to provide adequate police protection to pin for putting up fence on the northern side portion of my client's lands situated in Survey. Nos: 54/2, 263/2, 263/4 and 267 fot a total extent of 13.67 acres at Vadugapalayam Village, PalladamTaluk, Tiruppur District.His Writ Petition No: 28240/2021 was dismissed against him on 7-09-2022. i Pending proceedings of the above Writ Petition, Mr. Senthilicamar approached the Revenue Authorities for surveying my clienit lands situated in Survey Nos: 54/2, 263/2, 263/4 and 267 for ‘a total extent of 13.67 acres and for subdivision of the same an grant separate patta for the properties in his name. The Thasdbar, PalladamTaluk, passed order i in his favor against which my yj client filed appeal before the RDO, ‘Palladam Taluk. , The Hon’ble High Court of Judicature at Madras dismissed the Writ Petition W.P No; 28240/2021| mn 7-09-2022. The Hon'ble High Court has observed at Para |4 of it’s order tageMe. A Damodaran, learned | Additional ! ipublie Proseciitor sul bmitted that the matter is purely pea in nature and without the Jorder or judgment of the court, the police either of the parties; in in view of the! pending civil disp petition should be diémissed. cannot give protect ion to reedAfter the’filing of the above Writ Petition, my client filed a:suit in O.8 No: 431/2022 and 1A No: 1/2022 on the file of I Additional District Judge, Tiruppur to cancel the sale deeds in’ the name of Mr. Senthilkumar as the same is a sham. document executed without consideration and transfer of possession. Therefore, as on date two suits are pending in respect of my client’s properties. Mr. Senthilkumar is the 1* defendant in the above suit, and he is appearing before. the Hon'ble Court through his Suppressing the above facts, he filed petition before the Thasildhar, unsel. Palladam, for measurement and subdivision as if he is he true 3 owner and title owner and title holder of the properties. : aphysical On 16-09-2022, the Thasildhar, Palladam, arranged for measurement to help Mr. Senthilumar to put up fengpe 2 and assist him to physically occupy the properties, | called hi phone and conveyed him that Writ Petition filed ‘ Senthilkumar to provide adequate polige protection was dismi: and as such he should not proceed to measure the propétties for any reason whatsoever. The Thasildhar, Palladam told me a he ion of ; i : will stop the measurement ‘process and consequent subdi properties. On, 3-10-2022, my client’ came to know that the The ie Palladam, is proceeding to inspéct my client's proper take physical measurement for change lof. patta and subdivisic . thetaking measurement. My client verified the VAO;~Surveyor- and other Revenue Officers and confirmed that the Thasildhar, Palladam, is going -to execute his order, despite the fact that it amounts to Contempt of Court. : On the same day my client personally met No:1 of you in the presence of the Thasildhar and RDO of Palladam and produced the order passed by the Hon’ble High Court of Judicature at/Madras. No: 1 of you is not ready to read the order but simply told}that Mr. Senthilkumar is the owner and measurement, and sufdivision process could be done in his favor and only when By client obtained stay order from the Court you would stop the process. Therefore, it is crystal clear that No:1 of you dea your Subordinate Officers have decided to act in favor. of Mr. Senthilkumar, ever though the title dispute is pending before the Hor’bie_ District! Court, ‘Tiruppur and the Hon'ble High Court refused! to grant police protes his favor. ; . ; At this juncture I wish to wefer the Ff ie para 6 that though the 'Hetitioner (ur. Senthilumar) pe this petition, afresh, el only repeats the very samet to the. title “of the property situated"in ‘S. Nos: 54/2, 263/2, 263/4 and 267. In fact, the fifth respondent has filed the suit in O.S No: 32 of 2019 against the vendors of the petitioner for’ seeking relief of partition. and separate possession. of the shares. The petitioner can have any valid title over the property only in the entitlement of his vendors is settled by the Civil Court in the suit filed in 0.S N: 32 of 2019. The dispute which has to be settled by the Civil Court cannot take the form of a Writ Petition for police protection. On the scope, no direction as prayed by the petitioner can be granted: Although ‘the facts and circumstandes are as stated, Above) No: 1,6, 7, 8 and 9 have decided to act against the order of the Hon ible High Court of Judicature at Madras, on extraneous considera to act and support No: 9 of you, as he is.a well-known landiigrabber, usurious money lender and-also, he is a smoonightingealiny jeweler in Tiruppur. You are seeking t the protection of No: 5 of and 5 of you, for taking measurement and ‘patting up fencing b 9 of ourt. you, on the premise that. there is no stay order from the ‘The order passed by the’ Hon'ble bigh Court of a at Madras in W.P No: 28240/2021 dated/7-09-2022 has disdane disputes and stated that only after’ ‘the disposal of the ci pending before the Honble District, Tiruppur, the ith properties could be. ‘decided and hence no Dear granted.‘Thetefore, if No: 1,'to'9 of you have taken ‘any ‘steps ‘to physically measure, put up fencing and order for subdivision and grant separate patta, in favor of No: 9 of you, it would amount to disobedience and total disregardjto the orders passedj by the Hon’ble High Court of Judicatire at Madras in in W.P No: 28240/2021 dated 7- 09-2022. Your act of Contempt of Court could also extend to the orders passed by the Hon’ble High ¢ Judicature in Crl. O.P No: 28807/2019 and W.P No: 4736 202 In View of the absve, No: 1 to 9 of you are hereby called; desist from taking any action to inspect the properties ai Nos: 54/2, 263/2, 263/4 and 267 for a total extent of 1 jep urt of 1. on to gas acres at Vadugapalayam Village, PalladamTaluk, Tiruppur Dis} ye: and put up fencing either for helping No: 9. of you for his iega! ‘entry and occupation of the said properties or for the purpose of subdivision and grant of separate patta in favor of No: 9 Bt you. If you proceed further, oe Contempt of Court Notices, either er date hereinafter, my clienf:-wil Contempt petition against dll of you before the Hon'ble Hi of Judicature at Madras and in suchlan event, you all will b 1 on 6-10-2022 or on any. oI for the consequences. the High Court of Judicature at Madras. ; a t eeAdvocate H Copy of the order in W.P No: 28240/2021 dated. 9-09-2022; r ! aBEFORE THE COURT OF HON'BLE DISTRICT JUDGE, TIRUPUR O.SNo. 431 /-2022 P, Sivakumar P.Senthilkumar ‘ K.Subramanian A.S.Pradeep P.V Prabhu, Loganathan @ Logu M. Navaneethan @ Karthi QAsodye Defendants PLAINT PRESENTED UNDER ORDER VII RULE 1 CPC PLAINTIFFS: P.Sivakumar, S/o.Late Palanisamy, aged about 50 years, residing at Malaranthottam, Vadugapalayam Pudur, P.Vadugapalayam Village, Palladam Taluk, Tirupur District. + Address for service of the plaintiff is the same as above.and care of his counsels B.MOHAN B.A.,B.L., T. BANUMATHY, M.A., B.L., (En.No:1448/1998), M.SAYED IBRAHIM M.B.. L.,Mr.A.SARAVANAN, BA,B.L, | Mrs.SANTHIYA —- DHARANI B.Se.,LL.B., MrSOUNDARAPANDIAN “B/A.,LL.B., Mr.A.RAHUMAN ~ KHAN B.A.,LL.B., Advocates, No.4/46, 3 Street, Corporation Middle School Opposite Street, Thennampalayam Extension, Palladam Road, Tirupur. :2\DEFENDANTS: 1. P.Senthilkunlar, S/o.Palanisamy, aged about 48 years, residing at 30/1, Sccond Street, AmarjothiPonneger, Rakkiyapalayam, Kangayam Road, Tirupur South Circle, Tirupur District, Tirupur-641606. ' 2. K-Subramanian, S/oKandasamy, aged about 65 years,residing at Door No.303, Adhi Apartment, Annanagar West, Karur Taluk, Karur District-639 002. "3, ASPradeep, S/o.K. Subramanian, aged about 35 years, residing at Door No.303, Adhi Apartment, Annanager West, Karur Taluk, Karur District-639 002. : 4, P.v-Prabhu, S/o Palanissmy, aged 45 years, ‘residing at S.F No: 14/1; Sathi Main Road, Saranampatti Post, Coimbatore - 35. . : : : 5. Loganathan @ Logu, S/9.A. Palanisamy, aged 53 years, residing at Ka.Sa No: 469, Mangalam Village, Vayakadu Thottam, Tiruppur Taluk, Tiruppur District. _ - 6. M. Navaneethan @ Karthi, S/o S. Manickam, aged 40 years, residing at D.No: 210/56, R.V.K Street, T.N Palayam, Coimbatore - 47. : 3) ‘The plaintiif above named respectfully submits that he is the true owner-in exclusive possession and enjoyment-of the suit properties which are described in detail in the Schedule hereunder. The plaintiff grandparents were the original owners of the suit properties, and the plaintiff got the properties through settlement deeds dated 21.11.2007 vide registered Document No. 13215/2007 and 13216/2007 executed by his father and. paternal aunt and these were registered at Palladam Sub-registrar Office. Since then,on the plaintiff is in continuous:possession and enjoyment of the suit properties. . 4) The 1+ defendant is the purchaser of the suit properties from 2 to 5 defendants. The 2 to 5-deféndants ate the purchasers of ‘the suit properties ffom the plaintiff. The 6t defendant is real estate broker who mediates between the defendants and the plaintiff, for the brokerage commission of 5% in the loan amount received by the plaintiff. In fact the sale deeds were executed in the names of the defendants towards consideration of loan amount obtained by the plaintiff from them, along with the promise that on repayment of the loan amount they should execute the sale deeds in the name of the plaintiff. However, the possession and enjoyment of the suit properties are with the plaintiff only and the defendants 2 to 5 entered into the sale transaction agreeing for the retention of possession of the properties with the plaintiff, as the sale deeds « were executed for namesake. 5) The plaintiff submits that-dn 18-05-2009 he and the 4% defendant entered into an registered agreement of sale in respect of the plaintiffs property Ka.Sa No: 263/2' at. Vadugapalayam village, Palladam Taluk, Tiruppur District, to the extent of Acre 4.51 cents out of the total extent extant of Acre 9.11 cents. The said agreement was registered-on the same day as document No: 5994/2009 at Palladam Sub-Registrar Office. The plaintiff received Rs.-5,00,000/- from 4% defendant’s cousin brother, the 5 defendant herein. The plaintiff received raw materials from the 5% defendant to the value of Rs.5 lacs, for his ‘business of plastic bags. No cash transactionwas made between the -plaintiff and the 5% defendant. After supplying the raw materials for Rs. 5 lacs, the 5 defendant got Power of Attorney document No: 551/2009 dated 15-04-2009, in respect of the above property. Thereafter, the ‘5! defendant compelled the plaintiff to execute agreement of sale in the name of his brother, the 4% defendant hertin and the plaintiff executed the above-mentioned agreement of salé dated 18-05-2009, in respect of the property in favor of the 4% defendant. But in the agreement of sale it was recorded by the 41 arld-5t defendant that the plaintiff received Rs. 10 lacs on the date of execution of the sale deed but the plaintiff received only raw materials value of Rs. 5 lacs. Thereafter the 5 defendant executed a sale deed dated 30.09.2009 in his, capacity as a Power of Attomey of the plaintiff in respect of the above property in the name of the 4% defendant. The said sale deed document was registered as: Yoc.No.12213/2009 at Palladam Sub Registrar Office for the value’ of R&.22,55,000/- . But the loan amount received. by the plaintiff from 5t defendant is Rs.5,00,000/- 6) The plaintiff ‘submits that he approached financiers K.Subramanian and his son ‘A.S.Prateep, the 2.4 and 3 defendants herein, who are running a finance business in the name and style of SKS Finance, near Bus stand in Karur, for getting loan to develop his business. The plairitiff requested loan for Rs. 80 lacs __ in the year 2013 and the 24 and 8*! defendants agreed to grant the - said Ioan on the only coindition that he should execute sale deeds in their names in‘respect of the suitiproperties. Although the plaintiff pleaded with them that the valué of his properties was more than30 crores and hence’ it was not reasonable dnd feasible that to execute sale deeds in respect ofall his properties. The financiers, the 2n4 and 3 defendants herein, told the plaintiff that if he repaid the loan amount of Rs 80lacs with interest of 36 percent per annumand immediately after complete repayment of the loan * amount with interest they would-execute the sale deed in respect of all the properties, infavour of the plaintiff. It is also agreed by the financiers, the 24 and 3" defendants-that the plaintiff shall be in possession and enjoyment of the suit properties and they shall not disturb his possession and enjoyment and only the-sale deeds will be in their names. 7) The plaintiff submits that as he was in urgent need of money. to develop his plastic bag business which was run by him in the name and style of King Packing Industry at Vadugapalayam Puthur,. Palladam, he agreed to .their conditions. Moreover, as all the _financiers at Karur, ‘Tirupur and heomereeraii are putting such conditions in their usual course ey lending business, the plaintiffbelieved'the words of the firianciers 2=4 and 3"! defendants, and executed sale deeds Doc.No.14732/2013 and 14734/2013 dated 14-11-2013, in respect of the suit properties at S.F No: 267/1 to the extent of Acres 7.70 cents and Acre 1.09 cents along with HP Motor pump set and the borewelletc., The, plaintiff received the loan amount of Rs. 75:lacs in 3 installments in. 2013 and he started to pay an interest of Rs. .2,40,000/2 per month from December 2013 onwards. The plaintiff repaid-thesloan-with interest to the extent of Rs. 25 lacs to the 4 and-5% defendants and requested themto _ execute sale déed in his name, But instead of executing sale deedin the name of plaintiff; the 4% defendant executed sale deed in the " name of 2nd defendant. When the:plaintiff objected the surreptitious act of the 2m4.and.3* defendarits in collusion.-with 4% and 5t defendants, the 24 and-34 defehdants told that they would give further loan amount in’ consideration.of the sale deed document no: 12932/- 2015 dated 7-09-2015!#Then the plaintiff received an additional loan of Rs. 25 lacs in September 2015 from'them. In total the plaintiff received Rs. 1 crore 4s loan amourit and paid interest “at 36% per annum. ‘Thereafter, ab. the plaintiff was not able to run his business of plastic bags due to the ban on usage of plastic bags, he wanted to switch over to other business, he again approached the 2” and 3"! defendants for top-up of loan amount and at that time the 1* and 200'defendants asked the plaintiff to execute sale deeds in respect of his property “situated at Ka.Sa No: 263/4 and 263/5 to the total extent’ of 37 tenis. After execution of the sale deed document No: 115897 2018 daidd 11-09-2015, the 24 and’ 3-4 defendants did not extend any Joan’ to the plaintiff and they dodged to grant! loan. amount to him. we 8) The plaintiff submits that he repaid the loan amount with interest at 36 % per annum to'extent of Rs.70 lacs from December 2013 to December 2016. In thevyear 2017, the plaintiff could not repay the interest to the 24 and-8"4 defendants as the’ plaintiff-was forced to close his'manufacturing unit’ 6f plastic bags ‘due to the policy of the Government of abolishing plastic usage. Every time the plaintiff met the financiers, the 2¢ and:3" defendants to repay the loan amount; he got assurancé from them that they would re transfer his properties in the name of the plaintiff-after the totalrepayment of the loan with’ interest is fulfilled. The 2-4 and 3"! defendants time and again assured the plaintiff that they got the sale deeds in respect of the suit properties in their names only as a security for the loan’ amount and-nothing more than that..For the past four years the plaintiff used:to visit the 2>¢ and 3" defendants every week and met them either-in.their house at Anna Nagar, Karur or at their.business place of SKS Complex, Karur. Everytime, they used to tell the very same; false assurarice that they would execute sale deeds in respect of the suit properties in the name of the plaintiff. 9) The plaintiff submits that in the above circumstances, on 27- 02-2019 the 2"¢ and 34 defendants along with hundreds of his men. with Police personnel tried to enter into the suit properties to encroach the same, contrary to their assurances that the plaintiff's possession of the suit propertiés w would never be disturbed by them. The plaintiff and his family members resisted their attempts, and the news was reported i in the newspapers circulated in their area. Thereafter, the plaintiff's family members quarreled with him for his act of getting loan from usurious and notorious money lenders like the 2°¢ and 31 defendants. Thereafter, the plaintiff's wife namely Gandhimathy, daughters namely Samrithy, minor Harsha and minor Harshitha haye filed a partition suit in O.S.No.32 of 2019 against the plaintiff as well as the:2™¢ and 3" defendants before this Hon’ble Court to grant a partition decree partitioning the suit Property into 4-equal shares: in’ metes and bounds and allot % shares to them for.their separate possession and ownership. The plaintiff's wife has also prayed for maintenance’ payment for thepast and future against him. The above suit is pending before this Hon’ble Court. After the institution ofthe said suit by his wife and children, the: financiers, ‘the 294 and. 3" defendants threatened the plaintiff not to‘ contest ‘the’ above suit; as they are considering executing sale deeds in the name"of:the plaintiff, Thereafter the financiers, the 24 and 3"! deferidants surreptitiously and cleverly taking steps to dispossess the ‘plaintiff from the suit property, contrary to their promise that they: would re-transfer the suit properties in his name. root 10) The plaintiff submits that the 24 and 3 defendants have approached the police authorities for protection to put up fencing around the suit properties that aré still in'the plaintiff's possession and enjoyment. The police authorities called the plaintiff for enquiry, and he stated before: théypolice authorities that he. is the original’ owner in: physical possession“and enjoyment’ of the suit property and he had executed a sale deed only:as a security for the loan as promised by the financiers, the 2-¢ and 3 defendants. Only thereafter the plaintiff came to know that the financiers, the 24 and 3" defendants played surreptitiously with a malafide intention to grab the suit properties from: hint: Thereafter the plaintiff issued a letter dated 19.08:2020 and 25:09:2021-to the District Collector, Tirupur, the Tahsildar, Palladam'and:VAO Vaduhapalayam with the request that they may not change the patta, chitta and adangal in the name of the financiers, the 2" and 3" defendants, till the final disposal of the, suit in O.S.No.32/2019 pending om: the file of this Hon’ble Court. ¥ Ee11) The plaintiff submits that in the meanwhile the financiers, the 24 and 3 defendants, filed €rl,0.P. No.28607 /2019 before the Hon’ble High Court of Judicature at Madras to grant adequate police protection to them::to -put.-up--fencing around the suit properties. ‘They pleaded in the: petition that they are the true owners in possession and ‘enjoyment, and they purchased the properties through registered sale deed executed in their favour. ‘The plaintiff and his wife namely Gandhimathy were impleaded as 4¢ and 5 respondents in the above Crl.OP. The Hon’ble High Court dismissed the above petition on the basis that the 0.S.No.32/2019 is pending before the Principal District Judge, Tirupur in respect of the suit properties. aa ai Hey 2 12) ‘The plaintiff submits. that itt the above circumstances he went to the financiers, the 2°4ané 3" defendants’ office at Karur frequently and requested them to-receive the balance loan amount with interest and execute sale deed in respect of the suit properties in his name.In the last week of August 2021, the plaintiff along with the mediators met the 2! and 3*.defendants regarding execution of the sale deed in the name of the plaintiff. Shockingly the above said financiers, the 2" and-.3" defendants, executed sale deeds document no: 13432/ 2021 and 13434/2021 dated 16-09-2021, in favor the 1* defendant, Mr: Senthilkumar, who is also a well-known person for purchase ‘of disputed properties in Karur and Tiruppur areas. The 1* defendant is a jeweler, and he is running a jewelry shop in the tiame and style of Amman Jewelry in Tiruppur. The 1* defendant. is very well aware of the transactions between the plaintiff and 24 and 3! defendants. He also knows that the -possession of the: properties is':with. the plaintiff, and he is cultivating the lands til date- But'the 1* defendant is posing that he is a genuine purchaser’ for Waluable..consideration and the possession of ‘the suit properties ‘has been transferred to him from the 2.4 and 3" defendants: *, 13) The plaintiff submits. that the 1s defendant got the sale deeds executed in his name from the2™ and 3" defendants, in whose names. the previous sale deeds, stood, without the plaintiffs knowledge and consent. As the posséssion of the suit properties are still with the plaintiff and the possession was not transferred along with the sale deeds ‘to the 2»¢ and,3".defendants, the sale deeds are sham documents and the purchasers never acquired title to the properties. Hence, the sale deeds in. the name of 1st defendant are also sham documents and he has not acquired either title or possession through his sale deeils..{The 1s defendant's goons ‘namely Muthurathinam and his-men, came to the suit property to disturb the plaintiff's possessign. and enjoyment of the suit properties. He used to do similar acts of illegal purchase and tried to take possession of the properties by threatening the property owners in Tiruppur. district. Polide, complaints are pending against them at Avinasipalayam Police Station. In the’above circumstances the 1st defendant is’ trying to entér upon the suit properties to take forcible possession in illegal ways and means. The’ to 3 defendants are well known land grabbers in Karur and Tiruppur districts. Some other persons were also cheated by this team and the disputes between them are still gding on: ;14) The plaintiff submits that -he has already sent representations to the District Colieétér and other. police authorities regarding their land grabbing ticts:in’ thie guise of money lending. As they are influential péople’ no action has been taken against them by the authofities. In the above circumstances the 1st defendant filed W.P No: 28240/2021 before the Hon’ble High Court of Judicature at Madras against the District Police Officers to grant protection for his possession’ of the suit properties cleverly suppressing the fact that the possession with this plaintiff. The plaintiff and his wife are impledded as 4% and 4% respondents in the above Writ Petition. The ‘l* defendant is seeking ielief of police protection so that he could take over possession on the strength of the order of the Hon’ble Court. This plaintiff is contesting the above Writ Petition and he’ filed his detailed counter. The Writ Petition is pending before the Hon’ble Céiirt at Madras. The 1 defendant suppressed material facts in his-affidavit before the Hon’blé High Court. The statement of the 1* defendant in his affidavit and the ‘counter filed by this plaintiff may‘ please’be read as part and parcel of this plaint. 7 érs"as well his relatives. The properties are ot sub-divided by proper measurement and four boundaries to frove the exact possession. The 1* defendant and his previous vendors haye not taken any steps for sub-division of the properties as they are very well aware that the properties are in plaintiff's possession and enjoyment ‘and he does not have separate patta for the same. : :16) ‘The plaintiff submits.thatthe defendants colluded to cheat and defraud him through illegal ways and means. The 1+ defendant is falsely claiming that.he is in exclusive possession and enjoyment of the properties. The: defendants are strarigers to the suit properties. They have exploited the plaintiff's financial needs with a view to grab the suit properties worth more than 30 crores by lending loan of Rs. 1 crore for interest. The alleged sale deeds executed in the names of 1 to.4# defendants are void and illegal documents and the documents:are non-est in the eye of law. No sale consideration was passed! and title was not transferred. Possession of the properties also not transferred in favor of the purchasers. When the the 2» and 3 defendants filed a Writ petition No: 4736/ 2021 filed before this Hon’ble Court for the relief of police protection, it was dismissed on 9-03-2021, on the ground that they can work out their.remedy in O.S No: 32/2019 pending before this Hon’ble Court. Hencey:the 1* defendant who stands on the shoes of his vendors, cannft: claim title with possession in respect of the’ suit properties just-because he is having sale deeds in his name. Since the defendantg:1 to 4 are claiming themselves as innocent -puréhasers of suit propérties for ‘valuable consideration, the plaintiff filed this suit befofe:this Hon’ble Court to. cancel the sale deeds in the names of 1 to 4 defendants with consequential relief of permanent injunction against them. 17) The cause of action for the suit arose on 21.11.2007 when the plaintiff réceived the suit properties in his name through registered settlement deeds, on 18,05:2009 when the plaintiff entered into an agreement of sale with 4t defendant for loanamount of Rs. 5 lacs obtained from 5% defendant, on 30.09.2009 when the 5! defendant executed sale deed in favour of 4 defendant in respect of one‘of the suit. properties, on 14.11.2013 when the plaintiff executed sale deeds in favour of 294 and 3 defendants, ‘on 07.09.2015'when” the 4% defendant executed sale deed in favour of 24 defendant;:on 11.09.2015 when the plaintiff executed sale deed in favour of 3"! defendant, on 27.02.2019 when the 2nd and 3« defendants tried té-encroach the suit properties with police and their persons contrary:to their promise that they would execute sale deeds in the name of-the plaintiff after receiving the loan amount, on 19.08.2020 and:25.09.2021 when the plaintiff sent his: complaint petition to the Police authorities and the District Collector, etc., not to change the names in revenue records, on 16.09.2021 when the 24 and 3* defendants executed sale deeds in respect of all the suit’ properties in favour of is defendant, on 28.01.2022 when the plaintiff received notice from the counsels for the 1st. defendant regarding W.P.No.28240/2021 before the Hon’ble ought police protectionand on subsequent days the plaintiff is contesting the above petition which is pending before the‘Hon’ble Madras High Court till date and at Vadugapalayam, Palladam Taluk,,Tiruppur District where the suit properties are situated that comes within the jurisdiction of this Hon'ble Court. = L‘Prayer: On the above facts arid in the circumstances, it is- respectfully prayed that this Hon’ble Court may’be pleased to, @ To grant a decree and judgment cancelling the sale deed dated 30.09.2009 vide Doc.No:12213/2009 executed in favour of the 4% defendarit, in respect of Item No.1 of the suit property registered at Palladam.Sub Registrar Office, Tiruppur District; 9. ~ is (i) To grant a decree and judgnient cancelling the sale deed dated 14.11.2013 vide Doc.No. 14734/2013 executed in favour of the 3 defendant, in réspect of Item No.2 of the ‘suit property registered at Palladam Sub Registrar Office, ‘Tiruppur District; ‘ (iii) To grant a decree and judgment: cancelling the sale deed dated 14.11.2013 vide Doc.No.14732/2013 executed in favour of the 2%¢ defendant, in respect: of Item No.3 of the suit property registered at Palladam Sub Registrar Office, Tiruppur District; nye (iv) To grant a dectee and judgment cancellitig the sale deed dated 14.11.2013 vide Doc.No.14735/2013 executed in favour of the 2n defendant, in respect of Item No.4 of the suit property registered at Palladam Sub Registrar Office, Tiruppur District; (v) To grant a dectee and judgment cancelling the sale deed dated 11.09.2015 vide Doc.No.11559/2015 executed in favour of the 2n¢ defendant, in respect of Item No.5 of the suitproperty registered at Palladam Sub Registrar Office, ‘Tiruppur District; (vi) To grant a declétatory: deeree declaring that the sale deeds dated’ ~ 16.09.2021. vide Doc.No.13432/2021 and 13434/2021 executed in favour of the 1+ defendant by 2"¢ and 3" defendants respectively and registered at Palladam Sub Registrar Office, Tiruppur -District are null and void and non-ést in the eye of law; ; (vii) to grant a decree and judgment: of permanent injunction restraining the defendants, their heirs, claimants, men and others from interfering with the -plaintifls peaceful possession and enjoyment of the suit properties; (viii) to award cost of the suit against the defendants and in favour of the plaintiffs; and (ix) to grant such other suitable relief that this Hon’ble Court may decim fit and proper in the nature and circumstances of the case and thus render justice. Advocate for Plaintiff. Plaintiff. 1, the plaintiff do hereby detiare that the facts stated above are all'true and Gorrect to the best. of my knowledge, belief and information and I singed this at Tiruppur oh 2022.» BEFORE THE COURT OF HON’BLE DISTRICT JUDGE, TIRUPUR O.SNo. +3) / 2022 , P. Sivakumar : . Plaintiff -Vs- P.Senthilkumar K.Subramanian AS.Pradeep P.V Prabhu Loganathan @ Logu M. Navaneethan @ Ki we its, PLAINT PRESENTED UNDER ORDER ‘Vil RULE 1 CPC Address for service B.MOHAN B.A.,B.L., T. BANUMATHY, M.A., B.L., _— M.SAYED IBRAHIM M.B.A.,B.L., Mr.SOUNDARAPANDIAN B.: AL LLB. Mr.A.RAHUMAN KHAN B.A.,LL.B., Advocates, No:4/46, 3°! Street, Corporation Middle School Opposite Street, ‘Thennampalayam Extension, Palladam Road, Tirupur.641604 Cell:9994776030IN THE COURT OF THE PRINCIPAL DISTRICT JUDGE OF TIRUPUR O.S.No. 32-/ 2019 1. Gandhimathy 4 2, Miner Samrithy (As pov’ I-4-Slacay euder darled on 28/04 203)) 8. Minor. Harsha 4, Minor. Harshitha Plaintiffs Minors represented by its - Guardian mother of Gandhimathy Vs. 1, Sivakumar 2. K.A.Subramaniam / 3. ASPradecp Defendants PLAINT FILED UNDER OR VII RULE 1 OF THE CODE OF CIVIL. PROCEDURE * LBLAINTIFFS 1. Gandhimathy, aged about 45 years, wife of P.Sivakumar and residing at S.F.No.267/1, Kalarenthottam, Vadugapalayasi Pudur, P.Vadugapalayam Village, Palladam Taluk, Tirupur District. Gs ferT-a-Slaea ovlerdated 0” 29)8/20ai) 2. Miner .Samrithy, aged about 18 years, son of P.Sivakumar a 3, Minor. Harsha, aged about 18 years, son of P.Sivakumar- 4, Minor, Harshitha, aged about 13 years, son of P.Sivakimar All residing at S.F.No.267/1, Kalaranthottam, Vadugapalayam Pudur, P.Vadugepalayam Village, Palladam Taluk, Tirupur District. ‘The address for service of the plaintiff is as above and care of ‘Thir.A.P.C Krishnamoorthy B.Com.,B.L., ‘Tmt. K.Sarojini B.A.,B. ‘Thira.S.K.Varunkumar LLB., ‘Tmt. P.Amutha Verun B.B.M., B.L., Advocates, Erode & Tirupur. Ul, DEFENDANTS : 1, Sivakumar, aged about 47 years, son of Late Palanisamy gounder, residing at Kalaranthottam, Vadugapalayam Pudur, P.Vadugapalayam Village, Palladam Taluk, Tirupur District. Gell] TRUE XEROX COPY fae : : # e SUPERINTENDENT2. K.ASubramaniam, aged about years, son of Kandasarny gounder, residing at Door No. 303, Adhi Apartment, Annanagar West, Karur ‘Taluk, Karur District-639002. 3, A.S.Pradeep, aged about years, son of Subramaniam, residing at Door No. 303, Adhi Apartment, Annanagar West, Karur Taluk, Karur District-639002, Address for service of the defendants are as above Ml, The 1* plaintiff and the 1% defendant are wife and husband. Plaintiffs 2 to 4.are their daughters. Defendants 2 & 3 are the close friend and henchmen of the 1* defendant. Q Iv. The suit properties are situated at Vadugapalayam Village, Palladam Taluk, Tirupur District, ‘The suit properties are ancestral properties of plaintiffs 2 to 4 and the 1% defendant, The grand father of the 1% defendant namely Kandasamy gounder and the grand father of plaintiffs 2 to 4 entered into a portion of their ancestral properties by virtue of a registered partition degd dated 10.07.1975. Both Kandasamy gounder and Palanisamy gounder died intestate. V. ‘The 1# defendant is addict to alcoholic and he never cared the plaintifis. The father of the 1* defendant namély Palanisainy gounder hence during his life time along with his sister Sundarambal executed a release deed in favour of his mother Ammaniammal on 31.10.2007 with regards the properties which he got under the partition deed dated 10.07.1975: The said release deed was done with the active connivance” of the 1* defendant with his father not grandmother. VI. The grand mother Ammaniamnal had no separate income and she was only a home maker. The properties in the hand of Ammaniammal are the ancestral properties of the plaintiffs 2 to 3. The 1* defendant with active connivance of her grand mother had got the properties from her grand mother though two gift settlement deeds dated 21.11.2007 under two registered documents registered a Document No.13215/2007 and 13216/2007 on the file of Palladam Sub Registrar Office. He with an ulterior motive and intention to keep the suit properties out of the reach TRUE XEROXCOPY \ sue ay3 VII. ‘The 1* defendant is aware that in the suit properties the plaintiffs 2 to 4 are having share. The 1s defendant got separated from the 1 plaintiff for past 5 years and he is living a wandering life without taking care of the plaintiffs. He never comes the plaintiff and the 1% plaintiff is taking care the plaintiffs 2 to 4 with the help of her aged parents. The plaintiffs demanded for partition of the suit properties. Through mediators repeatedly for which the 1+ defendant did not heed his ears. VIII. The 1% defendant without considering the minors interest in the suit property and to defeat the rights of the plaintifis and with a evil ‘design and with active connivance of defendants 2 and 3 who are his close associates had executed, two registered sale deed in favour of the 2e4 defendant on 14.11.2013, 11.09.2015, registered as document No.14738/2018 and 11959/2015 and so also the 16 defendant had executed sale deeds to 9 defendant on 30.09. 2008,4 and on 07.11.2015 by document nos. 1213/2009 and 12932/2015 and on the file of Sub- Registrar, Palladam. Both the defendants 2 and 3 afe aware and got knowledge that the 1* defendant is bound to give maintenarice to the 1% plaintiff and plaintiffs 2 to 4 are having share in the properties. Infact no consideration had been passed for the said sale and they are slam and nominal to keep the suit properties from the reach of the plaintiffs. The said sale deeds are not binding on tke plaintiffs. IX, That apart as the 1s defendant abandoned his wife namely the 1* plaintiff without sufficient cause and hence the 1* plaintiff is entitled fq. claim maintenance from the 1* defendant and considering the following facts. () The position and status of the parties. (i) The reasonable wants of the 1* plaintiff (ii) The value and net income of the 1* defendant from the properties the i plaintiff ieasonably estimates the maintenance amount at Rs.6000/- per mensum she is also entitled to claim past and future maintenance and also claim charge over the share of the 1* defendant in the suit properties. The said demand is not only for food, cloths and residence but also for comfort and status in which the wife is 1S LamdhnaG TRUE XEROX COPY \gorr reasonably expected to live. TENDENT4 * X. The 1 defendant is an aléoholic and arrogant oppressive violent and including beating of the 1% plaintiff whenever he is an alcoholic need. XI, ‘The plaintiffs demanded for partition though the mediators become futile, XII, While the matter stood so defendants 2 and 3 with the active : assistance of the 1% defendant on 20.01.2019 tired to demolish the house situated in the suit properties, but with the help of the relative sand friends of the plaintiffs the said act was resisted. The plaintiffs reasonably apprehend that defendants 1 to 3 will once again attempt for such an action. Unless their action are restrained though injunction the plaintiffs will be put to great hardship and loss. XII. Hence the suit for partition of these suit properties for plaintiffs 2 to 3 for maintenance to the 1* plaintiff and for permanent injunction. XIV. No part of the suit properties was set apart for any religious and charitable purpose. XV. Cause of action for the suit arose on 09.07.2003 when the I plaintiff got married with the 1 deftndant and on 18.03.2018 when the 1 defendant had deserted the plaintiffs, when the plaintiffs 2 to 4 had got a share in the suit property and on 20.01.2019 when the defendangs 1 to 3 tried to demolish the house situated in the suit property and alt’? subsequent days when the 1% defesdant failed to comply the request of the plaintifis 2 to 4 for partition and for thé maintenance of 1* plaintiff at Palladam , Palladam Taluk within the jurisdiction of this Hon'ble court. XVI. The value of the suit for the purpose of Court fee and jurisdiction is Rs, 44,70,000.00 and a court fee of Rs. 26,630.00 is,paid under section 37(2) section 23 and section 27(c) of the TamilNadu Court Fees and Suits Valuation Act 14 of 1955. NDENT spree TRUE XEROX COPY Hl EEE5 DETAILS OF VALUATION For Partition Markct valuc of the suit properties For partition Rs. 50,00,000.00 Value of the 3/4* of Plaintiffs 2 to 4 In the suit property Rs. 37,50,000.00 A fixed court fees paid Under section 37 (2) Rs. 5,000.00 For Maintenance 1* plaintiff value of the suit 7 For maintenance at Rs.5000/- Per month the amount to be Claimed for year Rs.1,80,000.00 Court fee paid U/s.23 of Ht TamilNadu Court fees act Rs. 5,400.00 Past Mainte: ce 2 plaintiff value of the suit past maintenance at Rs. 15,000/- Per month for 3 years Rs.5,40,000.00 Court fee paid U/s.23 of - TamilNadu Court fees act Re, 16,200.06 For Permanent injunctio: ‘The plaintiff notionally values ‘The suit for'permanent injunction Rs.1,000,00 Court fee paid U/s.27 (¢) of a ‘TamilNadu Court fees act Rs, 30,08 ‘Total value Rs. 44,70,000.00 Total court fees paid Rs, 26,630.00 XVII. The plaintiff therefore prays that this Hon'ble court may be pleased to pass a decree; a) Directing the divi equal shares by metes and bounds and with reference to good and bad soil and allot and deliver scparate jon of the suit properties into + possession of one such share to each of the plaintiffs 2 tc 3 with delivery of separate possession. 56, Cicely TRUEXEROXCOPY sslresrenoeetb) ad 8) 4h) TRUE XEROX COPY eee oI 6 Appointing ‘a cominission’to effect such a division of the suit properties in the manner mentioned above. Directing the i* defendant to pay the 1% plaintiff a sum of Rs.5,40,000/- towards past maintenance from , 23.1.2016 till date of suit. Directing the 1* defendant to pay a maintenance of Rs.15,000/- per mensum to the i* plaintiff from the date of suit thoughout her life time. ‘ Create a chare over the 1/4t share of the 1s defendant share in the suit property for the proper payment of past present and future maintenance to the 1# plaintift .« granting a permanent injunctiqn against the defendants 1 te 3, their men and agents in any manner'irom disturbing the peaceful possession and enjoyment of the suit properties by the plaintiffs. Granting the defendant to pay the costs of suits to the plaintiffs. Granting stich other and further reliefs as this Hon’ble court may deem fit and proper in the circumstanceé ‘of. the case and thus render justice. S, Conall) 7 :: [Beréenaos, om cabot Pd acts Advocate for the plaintiffs * 2,5, Buineeh PO pi tiie — We, the above named Plaintiff, do hereby solemaly affirm that they are true and correct to the best of our knowledge, belief and inforniation and we signed this at Tirupur on: &B* /-/F . 7 : S. Aeeflmeltty7 SCHEDULE OF PROPERTIES BGye uBley wre, vsheLth euYBoy ont, AOL aL, UML samcé — gettuiAbeb, aQeumestunygm Aymo aay éhonity sdmedecul. aGsurmenuxs Snaps q-. BOSA2 Aporushse Sy e400 Bik Gyoiars Gump Fxg, amoounter® Seed. Gogioms sive Mies Rss Cuosiaanin 6.0.267/1 Gp.esronanh 5.7.70 yet Gute amaurion® Heat Gougromdl swiuntt yale eth Fy tod s SH Ose 6.6. 268 Op.sneneddeid Gund asmit. 1.0-267/1 Qp.csrenaned 6.7.70 wsNierd f aLag Beet ws H6 uy, 108i, 545,088 88.267 Op. sr.4,.G957.5.10.56 Sigs £517.85 BiB i Aptis Aumpeiles Aosinyporsny, Oguiard Gumpliled Cudcmoraagh 5.6.268 Gpanmoset, «.2.54/2 Graireneutte 2.siar 9.1.09 yeh Agi Cogs 6.0.267/2 Qp,.crsoaxiled ésrereayiysi rs cotungég ursBatule wise Gunns; aod AigGunsi aumsingtismengaieih Osi 50.266, 60.260 Opusrenmmanitst aL ag, Qsar us shied 14.07. 7.10 dg #6.45.13.00 Giniery ysis 5S wstar geSlamit 1 yoy. Cusiuig 9, Hes smodaten Qatar S HP. E.M.P. Qed 1 yymagh. Coping lent Goom’rirepdcefus flea - SusremieRb Coy Com Lngdgsihs Weer Qroseriny unjBus yan Ginsy Bemienpé Caigigs cull emibssrdvagash odin Guiry Gon ggusach pysuss afspaAlesivy. BS CO yxBI9 4G SGAIH aotor jy Yona edb ify sReiesteu rape pnd Sentact ob, cei TRUEXEROXCOPY Lapthraoe 67/1 Op.srennse, a OOUCLg.sign’ Guajiny grind &.6.263/3 Ores. Gam’. 211.565 5.5.3.00 Bisse umypw umiey Sy 523H6 £053.00 BIS) Gastron. Gunyfied Grseduyrares 86.260 /2 Op.ceremons ed 7 Ages, Giojuty. 0.0.260/8 Op, arenas) Stell hs Grabaurst soins urs Grtule pykeeih : uae 86.269/1 Op.ssneneries sites 5.8.268/2 Op.arenentiigib - ae Bont ws hHed 1191.2.61 46 $e5.1:60 2 sior yl yowagd edlgrd, Supe’ Aenigdaense eccienen wep sLumdSunbeast pyrnapb edith. Guiry 2.81 gudog) u.Apé.1.05.62 yf . (Sersicnwojs, Bei concen ORM Advocate for the plaintiffs 28,4 Ramey] assists We, the above named Plaintiff, do hereby solemnly affirm that they are true and correct to the best of our knowledge, belief and information and we signed this at Tirupur on: -43- 7-7F ee TRUEXEROX COP \WOUPERINTENDENT9 LIST OF DOCUMENTS S.NO. DATE PARTICULARS 10.07.1975 Certified copy of partition deed executed in between Kandasamy gounder and Palanisamy — gounder in Document No.1102/1975. ‘31.10.2007 Certified copy of share release “deed in favour of Ammaniammal by her daughter and son in Document No.12456/2007 on the file of $.R.0., Palladam. 21.11.2007 Certified copy of the gift settlement deed in favour of 1* defendant by his grand mother Ammaniammal in document No.13215/2007 on the file of SRO, Palladam, [21.11.2007 Certified copy of the gift settlement deed in favour of 1% defendant by his grand mother Ammaniernmel in document No.13216/2007 on the file of SRO, Palladam. 14.11.2013 Certified copy of the sale deed in favour of Qnd defendant registered as document number 14733/2013 on the file of S.R.0., Palladam,, 11.09.2015 Certified covy of the sale deed in Tavour of 2et defendant registered as document number 11559/2015 on the file of S.R.0., Palladam ‘30.09.2008 Certified copy of the sale deed in favour of 3% defendant registered as documeat number 1213/2009 on the file of S.R.O., Palladam le 07.09.2015 3% defendant registered as document number 12932/2015 on the file of S.R.0., Palladam [pth 208 Advocate for plaintiffs ‘TRUEXEROXCOPY TENDENT Certified copy of the sale deed in favour of | we~BAT? 3 ‘a ert ot Te vue [aie] peso Lovage Peau agree) -yonnwl Ww NG ' @ 7 ! WA HYMNS? _ elt [recvetg laagsinari | ra yy ‘TRUE XEROX CO} vegdvaroit ae [vsenoes Avwurend td >|Sick or Pathan sok | Brvranenl Cfenelren | : Veh J uk — &. kh re.00 A Couch fan gy Me. Ah hao]. poo #]s31 Ca), 25 nq treo g Tis) DISTRICT COURT, TIRUPPUR ifigina Suit No. Aton QL Presented in time ond Stamped fight. May be fied. © shertadar sue summons to defendants for Issues/finol disposal. Heating: 68 03.14 a] Nake ow FW Adlelitronk rishicl Dude Tgp $7 iepasil. acearehing E/ a e 2 a z 3 $s is per 4-5 C ‘Suit for partition maintenenes and injunction Value of the suit Rs.44,70,000.60 id Rs.26,6: IN THE COURT OF THE PRINCIPAL DISTRICT JUDGE. ! OF TIRUPUR O.S.No. .32-/ 2019 tiffs 1. Gandhimathy 2. etter .Sarhrithy, : 3. Minor. Harsha 4, Minor. Harahitha, \stinors represented by ite Guardiin mother of Sandtimatiry Wie Presented on : QB sD Enclosure: Documents Valralat Barta Extra Plaint Proof affidavit iterate oa Address for service i \s0renNteNoeyrXxCA AS2B fay os 22H19 Plank i Addl stamps « Copy made res. pel K- Mahenddxan Teea WreipAG 2g! WHS wralr Peosipbd sGiUuit @LSN.s165i. 32/2019 — 1. Sevs.enbsws) 2. enioonit.eibis 3. elosiit.amiragr 4, owen aniraggit - ourablaseit abit 1. @a.g.cuipwonfiund 2. g.orordadyghis 2:2, 31D Uy HomBascit 1) amas grdscd Gsuiguiior spsSeeogulsd soxtiGsiton sdeSesst unmet Upiiend Cumiuseng!, 2 sxiteode, wrprengi AS. Copy UsHearPsct Caaliuo ums gtys@sroiand shades soy wip stisSast sinsssensuyb amasisCor Peuss SLemwlutrairssct ayouit. 2» emnghessit grbsd Gaviguion spd geeoy unpr 3 wjspnd sd soiGeron shisSlecnmen, amBeciicr 2 _moyupmp wpb grou Gsrdatag aysuied Ib wsHomguier srdsrayb, 2 wpssd 4 andasisr shosofi Gancheonderdsranm absendd Sq GSS 10.07.1975 Costu vnatussyCung ungsPSurcurgs cauMsyd Copug anfaCer 55 Aoiomtiseie Polss SLewiuLLoriessit stor Goi Songech Qsielassyprirash.3) Cogn apdqony unr Sed setGoror sitiesglsonnen, apssb LpBans GyLUpsEs DHS oigeoumensied Cw sunglseosn Slay saldsaailerona siciimsupd 1b pHemsuiler spores LpsheMissoiGbd mpg sons absombduncr Seow Gris: Coping urstus Ayu unspSucwce Gangsgebesansn Sioitsaies prunir Sudwenfunbwonend@ 31.10.2007 CsBuler gos AGSOotussnd supSeradgiotoniss ries Cwoihurp omgeten 546 gjoemisenLet Poss stool Laiest ston LsHongpash siehsspriessi. 4 Copy apsGory Lupe 66d SontGottor sits SonTOM, omgsule unty ouverture stoioly argiorarapid Berane saiigid, 2 (Ed 4 anBaese gram Aerdsreng hols Gsrsgdacr sieiinsuyd anBeC Peis s_onwlulLovesit Quaurirecr. Cwgud s18 usguled Gsnedrodusiton snvesenton sion Gsnsgissonont1 Cungsg 1b Ty Hewrasude — ump Subweniunbiors lib igSemasuler Cuusfled esyby 21.11.20071 CsSusig 2 ren Get igs @wossin’. usSyrisenn aupSeasgwironnit oromugyb, jig AsLigedr@wexn useipnuescir LedeLb sriugemont signa sHed snot GstigsdGtosin. sysveu sresiressit.13215/2007 wppb 13216/2007 asa sToniresrfied LUParsuypioren steiimgsuyd UHemssch oyhqes@snotAonirssit. 5) Gipuy epseongy unpr 76d seoiGoton srtedlsonren, 2 apsod 4 amsaotG sro Csrssed unwkiG 2 sirens arsiuiersujid 1b GPa, sss 5 agrissre amPsmeniuie sours aASApri stems 1 cps 4 aursisenet sjouit soisfitiugedsos sictuensutd lb andere sang) ougmanAupCprtsst gimemusr 2 apse 4 aisnguloonen amglseoor LyMDAsgGsont —crcsumsuy —aundlassit_ © siamaraugib, udsnupprtait° qpouns by gfaungulla — Siojug Osrgsdecte unsb Canfuigrssyd, se Wb iySoung wmisgziolit rey FHIBBBeNSMUYLD Cuogbug. Upsleurglect YbGend wpsAlprivessi. ; 6) Binfuig onpseong unpr 86> eesitGotton otes~AasonTe, Lib Ussons, 2 (sed 4 auBaende Gendgudsonon BsnGssiming cei Cal crates Hed ope Gsnsgrdcoor Conf 2 wig 3b LpHenBsende oljpiorer Geviigioh Loi asigibd Sinaiessh sderid = sitiuglamenir = — Siguaisvagssleb 14.11.2013 Gagulsd — AenyustgseHy —roait.14733/2013 wy 11.09.2015 GsSuied HenywsLidss5y oreai11559/2015 ayBuisnar 21 LyHaws CuuGsqwd, siBsCuined 30.09.2009, 14.11.2013 ‘bud 07.11.2015 CasSasiied apanptu slengucissHy stosirassit.12213/2009, 14734/2013 wig 12932/2015 syBusenar 3u Lig Sours Cuusfgnd use) Giusti Goren cog ib amples, ub Lipgloss gfosmbsd GanG&es sieoiutrait sing 2 apps 4 alsguicoror anBlact smaagded Copii Gsndsld une ostong sto oflugd 2 iwbgubd 31d UpHardacnse pene Gpsfuyd croigud Gopi 2 wpgud 3b IggBHemPlesct Guiusiled SUS AOTUMBAAGEtS ooiLnar SomywSsnorsasit Jer GEMSSin sida coigu Copp USPHS serene lb yGenh wood 23 SemBsch salios Coinpgy GunaSuires BUMS Lene aongud CopUIg aNPaerse expire AsnsSed stir aiflrwsu AoywLusSyrsch srcvesSgud4 Uigserg soi spurte (piwand samprer ater 2, 3 LHondeci snquseinpsntr. 7) Cobig apdsqeoy umn 9b seiGsror stisSsonen, 1b Users, Wb amseou oAG Ube ampagrd 1b ange Aoonnbds sronsume wig 66,000.00 Gangs CoumiGib coin aGusiors apsdéibers Quminns Cstéotul uflesmmb argu aun glesoit lobo ib ig slourg SIMSON GID earpares AAs oAGrcingat soigu enAesiicr oeigm. Sssneuscit Soasosyd lb Upsoamsisrs OsuigiaGgeéort stagnd Cropp UpHomBlssh soguaeirgentr. 8) Bopulg apdqeny vim 10 (psed 12 ermguied sentGeien staSsote, lb Wand Ggwupsas Ape oigsooume lid amsuisr side sotiomruitisracyb, sscmsd aumdlescir Seosmogbd ughemusstiasst apo lb VgSempul Group Gsrsgsscfeod ura Camflugrsnid, ss 20.01.2019 SsHwsip 2 whpwd 3b UySampach, ub pHomguyer Coibgy CsreiG pss Carder oto hyn ose Qusipsrsod og anBasr siess o_poletsep_st Cabs AOSSarIsq saPuyjsiong: appGend Cumiwirer sissgvseit ore Copy UpSangSesst sogueslenpent. 9) Coping 2, 3 pSomPscir uomloyer swilwicuig, u@sefled 2 wed 4 ampulorer omBacier sider LupailemPassyeni Gib, Garcimsarser spsrmissosigGb ss — 10.07.1975 Sssustp unainifialnen siligi GanetApnicsst. ome LirestyS ST stexit.1102/1975 y@ib. Ciobuin umetwiflavlenowntg,pron andes = bg Homie = aster LpMeMMId Hoo GEG urdu G Sieuit (Wwenwusireat somgarsSo QosAGsraG pss siguoisgr oupgwi - exo Coun Hons Ogsfolealeinpnirast. 10) Cognd Going Ussomiash Asfeltiug wnOsefle, sreur Cssgdemen Cupsge upsiemds soya wpond sina sCarsf apeymbunet glu Qoago siba oye smunit Swbweriuibdwnet stsHUAGSEG SLHS 31.10.2007 CHsweig gw LTELTsEHU AMGsmolwusAyid q 25 3 galeries —ioreeienio © stan LwigFosipsSed grav Csnsgdsmor oenelG surg, SHIGA SeowsSGwCuTBI, LsdooLtd srovsd gsromulerir ungemiiy apis 2 SeyolGong wenrdscd Cavigl Clogiig wepiowangs Crl.0.P.No.6971/2017 stain stenitonfled § Camtuae aS SaLLI_G 2 HBTOY Upiisstul srecpd 2, 3 Ugslamgsasatt Qpehaaypriressi. 14) Cognd 2, 3b WFonsect Osfeltiugs wumagaied, LwiresitLiento Qscienen 2 WikHwenp 2_AHAPBTQILUIQ. Sreur Gsrdgids5nm ooelG Gain sgami o_anfessr wig asradgionn oglanileaio BLS 26.02.2019 Ceslweigy OsapCiTg! agemi oPemfseer uel Csuus ofLmosd Gare anigegacnnd 1b anH, 1b UsHens wpgud lb eimsudeir sCargrr rodameISA siuctest saymg Geuigenit. GCwoxpung Asus adiyrs, uisderid gensoon joo sleneneuwir ucdsoLt Grad PoougsAed yer Qsildsi, Gp stoir.192/2019 ovsing croton) § GCiopiig pues 6g Upsed Head opldms ugly Gotmiuce gs. 15) Senior G Copiy 2 pSeyolmar Agfiss Games ondsst wig 1b Ses groan CendSener st SHS Upburs onefss CasiGbd stip Got saiamgglaub eugeepb, ib SgAonBupd sci Coinbg Oss grouraienss sides) suigistonnisc story, Cui gsramalens 9GHUYSOSsOaTHG lb ans wretnew Ascher LUMBSwosipsAed Os sro apguydainy rsiahys sinsiGaesid GrimémLig co 9G SALCLTEDE wg sibs Asuligi sibs wapeureng! — W.P.NO.7469/2019 stain stostemiled §—- Gass; aGSaucG, Copy 2 3 HoamBsemse Shon SOPLLTHSM OSB. Cou wempluireremenus AuypprsQsroi. 2, 3 Lglonsast groan Osnssrarg smaenss apapsoowTs USSU G! seroyd amBact, ld iSong Boag 2, 3 UAarBsnHsG sto GCendgdsoed ocier sLrcyhen 2iloromu vepbsCasin O'S wo sréaod Ariutulga sored, stom Cembgisaonor 2, 3 HeuBachsnor AsSLOudsg agapiiass sig Css 2 gAGsim Coursing oneiiow Asciensr o_witSBlosimb, 2 wins Soin sys apéapemy SS smomugre Huddsi stam Osndghenar AGA: SQaorsesss unterawIiG sonelG Geilig, syldene FUMUISGIdug oSspoiig. Being HS 05.07.2019 sing rerio Csciensr 2 _wikAwsm 2 Asyeyuig 2 wixSswsim OUR aNpSHpHesir, usdoorid euLm’ Aust, usdoorud aw peo Somme, agen aytianent, Agmo Bireme sigyeiot wiyptb agami ginguletrsc gram BargsSlener —_wesituemw Qwigsodp 2 sssolenig sionolG Qsuvigy sini 1 1/2 om Sugapsiton sod LOU G PlogsHenon pres wp etedenaraenemuyd Glramun Osuxsniest. Cognd sis 18.07.2019 esHussign Gran Csnssencr sone GsvupbGumg aGsscuc. ofigGum udlyssh, ewig Swe syenomusiler syione, —_LisdovLib aL Fu Smiteafsr opldora, Copy AsnsHet uloe, ACL Guirsipensussit inten §=— @echenen = &_usinBaStosinnsisodsrosoOstuicneG 2, 3 pPomPeser 2 feo undglusapd Mua soansorupb 2 gsH\Ceuviutwe ig. orate 16) Cog UsHardlact Apiohiugs wnGgefiss, 2 apged 4 onmdast upsilend seems wastes Seo Lumgy, sitesi ' pasteNpLCUsAsst syamiact, Copuy lub pAaurgusronout Liss sqeaLiier wast Ayam. ctonCa, vipsiemAsseyesinit bod suf Cars apsymburct qxalunit sivas) srw SlbvetuboTETss cypsoass ursutdsdur alGsemsenu Gurgsgd, 1b pSHemPsuler GuuiGseG onbdwenfluubdoret sreur Gsrdgidsmens Cugdg TPSsOsGSS gsrer GatgerCwossiit. Gsndgbsaied 2 apse 4 anSactr uratuifislns Conmupie cis spsastun anspor Har wumgy. 17) Cogn 2, 3b Ussansash Gsfaltug: wiOseie, Obs grat 2, 3b Sandan gompCacnGb say GalL comromsee amBesct who lb UgHems syACumgred gat Cripg gsrdac GsiwiucGerng. amiact sogud Cui shaedasct wrod apddipers Cuniwme Cpgmgéaciilrenei aap 1 Med 4 aenguietat angHasit wpb lb inslens Semsragid epdéed @Pitnicu Geter cpsoufiuld gy EGbumassr& ada agdaprias coigud saldésoiune aPsacicden corgi Cop slosech 2 gSunsd sogDepntressit. 18) Gogmd 2, 3b LyFonBesh Asfiching: wunAgsaieo, Obs STAG apderrsGio emus stoma aut Hlesanned GuniUTE BSS apsdpars sps@epob 2 Gansscue Gorongi ccm igSanBasct Ashalsdepert. sro Gangguebsatied10 ampect GUI Goion —5.5.263/3 Cp. wensvulled sitar Gsmsgidec sPCung serps opp saihopanpirss bS apééd of syiietaoms sé Csitésefedons. ciexCar, QAeuTiss Guusfisd 2 sions. swltsonor omgiasci, sifu —gyinletrsmen =A Cattebaflebena tsi arms Sibsrsoid eypibu PsulloCu seinenuy GaimBosdGid Ferold 2, 3b UgAamsesct gs MeksApniressir. 19) Gogud 2, 3b UsAangast Spfioiinig, unGsaite, Bibs Lp AomnBassi agirenoos sed @semoutiuL Led sn pod aPrapsesyeou srbs Govwiond sunpns o sironssnes Opiohsepriteseit. acta, oreiue Seuosippi CopAsnsher snyeurtisofiet SIHUOLUI BSS Siomsiioner GsnaFSAgrerouyer soirepuig Geis: oSsrelGwrgy 2, 3 UipGanpasst IpmrsAaDeiorircsci. 2b Lens owpdapherit 2b Bourg aftumis se Abd UHoamPwursus pret Coo SPI Gston stuaspessir Uta 2 stom seg, 2 pSuErme ssid glny~SQanadG, BBHod 05.07.2021 CoHussio Agius maGumund QsuiGgei, 2b UgHouraIN THE COURT OF THE. PRINCIPAL DISTRICT JUDGE OF TIRUPUR ILA.No. \ / 2019 O.S.No. 22 / 2019 1. Gandhimathy 2. diner Samrithy(As per T-4-5]20a) orcler dated on 23] ¢/z02i) 3. Minor. Harsha 4, Minor. Harshitha Petitioners /Plaintifis ‘Minors represented by its Guardian motlier of Gandhimathy Vii. 1. Sivakumar , 2. K.A.Subrarianiam : 3, AS.Pradeep Respondents '/ Defendants AFFIDAVIT FILED BY "HE _18t PETITIONER / 1st PLAINTIFF 1, Gandhimathy, aged about 45 years, wife of P.Sivalumar and residing at S\F.No.267/1, Kalaranthoitam, Vadugapalayam == Pudur, P.Vadugapalayam Village, Palladam Taluk, Tirapur District do hereby solemnly affirm and sincerely state as follows : i. 1 am the petitioner herein and the 1* plaintiff in the above suit » (Plaintiffs 2 to 4 are my daughters) 2 2. ‘\Gatyself and the 1% defendant are wife and husband\Sefendants 2 & 3 are the close friend and henchmen of the J* defendant.) 3. (The suit properties are stiuated at Vadugapalayam Village, Palladam ‘Taluk; Tirupur District. The suit properties are ancestral properties of plaintiffs 2 to 4 and the 1* defendani The grand father of the 1% defendant namely Kandasamy gounder and the grand father of plaintiffs 2 to 4 entered into a portion of their ancestral properties by virtue of a registered partition deed dated 10.07.1978. Both Kendasamy gounder and Palanisamy gounder ded intestate) iu 8, Cuakmatty TRUE XEROX COPY \.aueedrenoentTRUE XEROXCOPY ce 2 4. ‘The 1* respondent is addict to alcofiolic and he never cared the plaintiffs. (The father of the Is respondent namély Palanisamy gounder hence during his life time along with his sister Sundarambal executed a release deed in favour of his mother Ammeniammal on 31.10.2007 with regards the properties which he got under the partition deed dated 10.07.1975) The said release deed was done with the active connivanée of the 1* respondent with his father and grandmother. 5. ‘The grand mother Ammaniammal had no separate income and she was only a home maker. (the properties in the hand of Ammaniammal are the ancestral properties of the plaintifis 2 to 4. The 1st respondent with active connivance of her grand mother had got the properties from her grand mother though two gift settlement deeds dated 21.11.20 under two registered documents registered a Document No.13215/2007 and 19216/2007 on the file of Palladlam Sub Registrar Office, He(ith an ulterior motive and intention to keep the suit properties out of the reach of the plaintiffs 2 to 3 and to show a colour that the properties which he got though her grand mother as the property of female) 6. Cine 15 respondent is aware that in the suit properties the plaintifis 2 to 4 are having share. The 1* respondent got separated froim the 1% plaintiff for past 5 years) and he is living a wandering life without taking care of the plaintiffs. He never. comes the. plaintiffs house and the I am taking care the plaintiffs 2 to 4 with the help of my aged parents. We(the plaintiffs demanded for partition of the suit properties) ‘Throfigh mediators repeatedly for which the 2% respondent did not heéd his ears. suit property and to defeat the rights of the plaintiffs and with a evil design and with active. connivance of defendants 2. and 3 who are his idering the minors interest im the close associates had executed two registered sale deed in favour of the gut defendant on 14.11.2013, 11,09.2015,) registered as document No.14733/2013 and 11559/2015{and so also the 1* defendant had executed sale deeds to 94! defendant on 90.09.2009 and on 07.11.2035) by document nos. 12213/2009 and 12932/2015 and on the file of Sub- Registrar, Palladam. Goth the defendants 2 and 3 are aware and got ‘knowledge that the 1* defendant is bound to give maintenance to the Ist NTENDENT, 5, Gnelimalty3 plaintiff and pldintiffs 2 to 4 are having share in the properties. Infact no consideration had been passed for the said sale and they are slam and nominal to keep the suit properties irom the reach of the plaintiffs. The said sale déeds are not binding on the plaintiffs 8, Ghat apart as the 1+ respondent abandoned me without sufficient cause and hence I am entitled to claim maintenance from the 1 F respondent,) 9. The 1+ respendent is an alcolotic and arrogant oppressive violent and inchiding beating of the 1* plaintiff whenever he is an alcoholic need. 10, Chile the matter stood so respondents 2 and 3 with the active assistance. of the 1 respondent ou 20.01.2019 tried to demolish the house situated in the petition mentioned propertics, but with the help of the relative sand friends of the petitioners the said act was resisted. The petitioners reasonebly apprehend thnt respondents 1 to 3 will once again attempt for such an action) 11. /Unless the respondents are restrained by means of a temporary injunction, we will 3¢ put to great herdship and irreparable loss) i 12. We have got a prima facie caze and the balance of convenience is decidedly in our favour. 13. (Therefore it is just and necessary that the Hon’ble court may be pleased to grant a temporary injunction to restrain the respondents y injunction from disturbing the ir agents and assigns by a tempor peaceful enjoyment and possession of the petition properties till the disposal of the stiiand pass an ad interim order of injunction with same effect pending disposal of this petition and thus render justice. 7 S, Codhtonsitly Solemnily affirmed and signed before me at Tiruppur on : 22.01.2019 yd \ GBS ) eo RS Advocate, Tirupur. TRUE XEROX COPY] ‘ Viste INTENDENT,one IN THE COURT OF THE PRINCIPAL DISTRICT JUDGE, OF TIRUPUR LANo. : — / 2019 | 0.S.No. / 2019 AFFIPAVIT FILED BY TE 18T PETITIONER / AST PLAINTIFF ' ee TRUE XEROXCOPY oes ENDENT.IN THE COURT OF THE PRINCIPAL DISTRICT JUDGE OF TIRUPUR’ LA.No. \ / 2019 0.8.No. 32 / 2019 1. Gandhimathy, 2. anor Samrithy (As per 14-5202) over estee on 28) lara) 3. Minor. Harsha 4, Minor. Harshitha, Petitioners /Plaintifis Minors represented by its Guardian mother of Gandhimathy : 1 Vs. 2. K.A.Subramaniam 3. A.S.Pradeep PETITION FILED unper DRDBR 39 RULE 1 AND 2 ‘AND SECTION 151 OF THE CODE OF CIVIL PROCEDURE 1. Sivakumar . Respondents / Defendants L PETITIONERS / PLAINTIFFS 1. Gandhimathy, aged about 45 years, wife of P.Sivakumer and residing at S.F.No.267/1, Kalaranthottam, Vadugapalayam Pudi” P.Vadugapalayam Village, Palladam Taluk, Tirapur District. (As per 1-0-5 a2) order oltteel on 23) /20ai) 2. ‘Minor .Samrithy, aged about 18 years, son of P.Sivakumar 3, Minor, Harsha, aged about 13 years, son of P.Sivakumar 4, Minor. Harshitha, aged about 13 years, son of P.Sivalcamar All residing at $.F.No.267/1, Kalaranthottam, Vadugapalayam Pudur, P.Vadugapalayam Village, Palladam Taluk, Tirupur District. ‘The address for service of the plaintilf is as above and care of ‘Thirw.A.P.C.Krishnamoorthy B.Com,B.L., ‘Tmt. K.Sarojini B.A.,B.L. Thiru.3.K.Verunkumar LL.B, ‘Tmt. P.Amutha Varun B.B.M., BL, Advocates, Erode & Tirupur. TRUE. yproncont \\USUPERINTENDENT2 I RESPONDENTS / DEFENDANTS : 1, Sivakumar, aged about 47 years, son of Late Palanisamy gounder, residing at Kalaranthottam, Vadugepalayam Pudur, P.Vadugapalayam Village, Palladam Taluk, Tirupur District. 2. KASubramaniam, aged about * years, son of Kandasamy gounder, residing at Door No. 303, Adhi Apartment, Annanagar West, Kerar ‘Taluk, Karur District-639002. 3. AS Pradeep, aged about years? son Of Subramaniam, residing at Door No. 303, Adhi Apartmenit, Amanagar West, Karur Taluk, Karur District-639002 ‘Address for service of the defendants’are as above For the reasons stated in the mpanying affidavit the petitioner preys that the Hon'ble court may be pleased to grant a temporary injunction to restrain the respondents their agents, and assigns by a temporary injunetion rom distaing. the peaceful enjoyment arid possession of the petition properties'till the disposal.of the suit and pass an ad interim order of injunction : this petition and thus render justice}... uh same effect pending disposal of SCHEDULE OF PROPERTIES Hl Segtyyit uly wore“, ished, etuilay axltb, usdso id eat“Ltb, usbeoth eat gaifusSbed, aGeuromiiget — Sima ‘amy Sta. sademéGluce axGeuarenemuih Agmogsla no 5H/2 Oparysrhod Hg, FGA GSO Apaiersd Cupid Akgumarss. aumausiresn® Sera. Gougienh cnctuisut afer Giosbesonin. 6.6.267/1 Cyp-zimennuiihd «1.7.70 whee emmenuisiten® Sarai. Geiger svsttnuit yee Aytod g.sHGS eine 6.0.258 Gg.esrenevdie5ih Gund eionit. 6.0-267/1 Agsranewi8d 6.7.70 Heed Bast us hile us. OKT Gin, wT. Goins7.10-56 Bes 15.17.85 BS ‘TRUEKEROXC.“Y irennl dnoen fe Baie Opie ase 038g 665.088