RAYAPPAN AND OTHERS Vs. KANUMUNTHAMMAL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Defendants, who have been defeated in the courts below, have preferred this second appeal with the following substantial questions of law:

(2.) Heard the learned counsel for the appellants and the respondent.

(3.) Short facts for disposal of the case are as follows: The plaint schedule property is part and parcel of 3 cents of property purchased by the plaintiff as per Ext.A1 document. She was in possession of the entire property. 1st defendant's wife is plaintiff's sister. She approached the plaintiff seeking permission to construct a cattle shed in the plaint schedule property. It was agreed that whenever the plaintiff demanded, she would surrender the property. As they were in cordial terms, the plaintiff allowed her sister to make constructions in the plaint schedule property. Thereafter, plaintiff took steps to construct a house in the property. At that time, she demanded surrender of the property and removal of the cattle shed. Though the 1st defendant assured that he would surrender the property, he did do so. Plaintiff constructed a house in the remaining 2 cents. It has become necessary to remove the cattle shed for a decent living in the house. As the defendants refused to do so, the suit was filed seeking recovery of possession of the plaint schedule property on the strength of the plaintiff's title.