KALYANI Vs. CHAMIYAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The only substantial question of law arising in this Second Appeal is whether the lower appellate court is justified in reversing the decree of the trial court and decreeing a suit for injunction simplicitor without establishing the fact that the respondent/plaintiff was in possession of the property on the date of the suit.

(2.) Heard the learned Senior Counsel Shri N. Dharmadan for the appellants/defendants and the learned counsel Shri P.S. Appu for the respondent/plaintiff.

(3.) Brief facts in the case are as follows: Respondent/plaintiff contended that plaint A schedule belonged to him and he is in possession of the same. It is the case in the plaint that plaint B schedule property situated on the western side of plaint A schedule property is in the possession of the appellants/defendants. Ext.A1 is the purchase certificate issued by the Land Tribunal in a suo motu proceedings in favour of the appellants showing that the eastern boundary of plaint B schedule is the property belonging to the respondent/plaintiff. The appellants attempted to trespass into plaint A schedule property and hence the suit for injunction was filed. Per contra, the appellants/defendants contended that 40 cents of property is in their possession and the respondent/plaintiff has no property on the eastern side of the kudiyiruppu of the appellants. According to the appellants, Ext.A1 purchase certificate was not issued on their application and the extent shown therein is not correct. It is also their contention that they are not claiming any right under Ext.A1.