LAWS(MAD)-2000-8-126

MAYA ALIAS HIRA BAI DIED Vs. PREMA

Decided On August 25, 2000
MAYA ALIAS HIRA BAI (DIED) Appellant
V/S
PREMA Respondents

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE above second appeal is directed against the judgment and decree dated 7.3.1989 made in A.S.No.15 of 1987 by the Court of Additional Subordinate Judge, Vellore thereby reversing the judgment and decree dated 24.9.1986 made in O.S.No.115 of 1983 by the Court of District Munsif, Ranipet.

(2.) ADVERTING to the facts and circumstances encircling the whole affair, what comes to be known is that it is a suit filed by the respondent herein against the deceased first appellant herein before the trial court for a permanent injunction restraining the defendant and her men from interfering in any manner with the plaintiff's peaceful possession and act in bridging the fallen portion of wall "AB" marked in the plan and for costs. The suit property is a house bearing D.No.33, Jagannatha Mudaliar Street, Arcot.

(3.) AGGRIEVED, the plaintiff in the suit had preferred an appeal in A.S.No.15 of 1987 before the Court of Additional Subordinate Judge, Vellore and the said first appellate court having framed the points for determination, viz., "1. Whether the portion shown as "AB" in the plan and the property lying on the South of the "AB" portion belong to the plaintiff. 2. Whether the plaintiff is entitled to permanent injunction. and 3. What relief, if any, is the plaintiff entitled to. had allowed the appeal in full thereby setting aside declaring the plaintiff's title to the suit property and further granting the relief of permanent injunction thus setting aside the judgment and decree passed by the trial court as a result of which, the respondent therein, who is the defendant before the trial court has now come forward to file the above second appeal on certain grounds as brought forth in the grounds of appeal and the same has been admitted for determination of the following Substantial Question of law: Whether the lower appellate court was right in holding that the plaintiff is entitled to the relief of declaration of title, without a prayer to that effect and without payment of court-fee for that relief.