KALAVATHY Vs. G RADHAKRISHNAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS Second Appeal has been filed at the instance of the legal heir of the deceased sole Defendant, challenging the decree and judgment dated 30.9.2004 passed by the learned Additional District Judge, Fast Tract Court No.III. Chengalpet at Poonamalle, in A.S. No.73 of 2000, whereby the decree and judgment dated 25.7.2000 passed by the learned District Munisif-cum-Judicial Magistrate, Ambattur, in O.S. No.464 of 1996, were affirmed.

(2.) THE 1st Respondent herein instituted the Suit in O.S. No.4 64 of 1996 against one Padmavathy Ammal and the 2nd Respondent herein as the Defendants, for the following reliefs: (a) For a declaration of the Plaintiff"s title to the Suit mentioned "B" schedule property and for vacant possession of the "B" schedule property from the 1st Defendant after removing the superstructure put up by the 1st Defendant: (b) For a mandatory injunction directing the 2nd Defendant to disconnect and remove the power connection given to the 1st Defendant; and (c) For costs of the Suit to be paid by the Defendants.

(3.) ON the basis of the above said pleadings, the Trial Court framed five issues and on the side of the Plaintiff, he examined himself as P.W.I besides examining one Kesavan as P.W.2 and marked Exs.A-1 to A-10 and on the side of the Defendants, the 1st Defendant examined himself as D.W.I and marked Exs.B-1 to B-22. The Trial Court, on a consideration of the entire evidence on record, both oral and documentary, by a judgment dated 25.7.2000, decreed the Suit as prayed for with a direction to the 1st Defendant to hand over the vacant possession of the "B" schedule property within two months from that date. As against the said judgment of the Trial Court, the 1st Defendant filed an Appeal in A.S. No.73 of 2000 before the Additional District Court (Fast Tract Court No.III), Chengalpattu at Poonamalee. Pending Appeal, the sole 1st Defendant died and the legal representatives were impleaded as the 2nd Appellant and Respondents 3 to 5. The Lower Appellate Court also dismissed the Appeal and confirmed the decree and judgment of the Trial Court. Feeling aggrieved by the judgment of the Appellate Court, Kalavathy, the legal heir of the deceased 1st Defendant has filed the present Second Appeal, showing the other legal heirs of the deceased 1st Defendant as Respondents 3 to 5.