KANDAPAZHA NADAR Vs. CHITRAGANIAMMAL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Challenge in this Appeal is to the judgment rendered by a learned single Judge of the Madras High Court allowing the second appeal filed by the respondents under Section 100 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (in short the Code). Respondents are the legal representatives of the original plaintiff.

(2.) According to the plaintiff, the suit properties originally belonged to one Chelliah Nadar, he had purchased the suit properties under sale deed Ex. A1 dated 26-2-1973, the defendants 1 to 3 fraudulently created a conveyance deed in their favour, the defendants had earlier instituted O.S. No. 298 of 1973 on the file of the District Munsif Court, Srivaikuntam, the defendants obtained orders of injunction and managed to enter into the suit properties; the defendants have no right whatsoever, the suit O.S. No. 298 of 1973 was dismissed after contest, in appeal, the first appellate Court decreed the suit in favour of the plaintiff in the said suit, present plaintiff preferred Second Appeal, No. 8 of 1977, pending the said Second Appeal, said suit was permitted to be withdrawn i.e. suit O.S. No. 298 of 1973 but without liberty to file a fresh suit on the same cause of action, the defendants have no right in the suit property and the defendants who have no right are in enjoyment of the suit properties since 11-6-1973.

(3.) It was the further case of the plaintiff that the defendants have cut and carried away the Odai trees worth Rs.1500/-, the defendants have been tapping toddy from 42 palmyra trees since 1973 standing on the suit properties; the defendants have also cut and carried away two palmyra trees worth Rs. 200/-, the defendants have been cultivating ground nut and derived income of Rs. 1000/-, the palmyra trees would fetch an income of Rs. 400/- per annum; the defendants 1 and 3 are liable to pay Rs. 5100/- towards past mesne profits and the plaintiffs are entitled for recovery of possession besides past and future mesne profits from the defendants.