BAKTHAVATSALAM Vs. RAMALINGAM

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THESE Second Appeal have been entertained on the following substantial questions of law:(a) Whether the Plaintiff in OS.No.340/94 has proved his vendor's title?(b) Whether the Defendant in OS.NO.340/94 and the Plaintiff in OS.NO.349/94 has not proved his vendors' title?(c) Whether the Defendant in OS.No.340/94 has prescribed title by adverse possession?

(2.) THE Appellant had filed the suit in OS.No.349/94 for permanent injunction restraining the Respondent from interfering with his peaceful possession and enjoyment of the suit property. He had purchased the suit property under a registered sale deed dated 21.3.94 Ex.B1, constructed a hut, put up thorn fence on the north, south and west and on the east, the fence already put up by the eastern owner is in existence. According to the Appellant, his predecessor in title and after purchase under Ex.B1 sale deed, the Appellant is in possession and they have prescribed title by adverse possession.

(3.) I have heard Mr.R.Gururaj, the learned counsel for the Appellant and Mr.R.Sunilkumar, the learned counsel for the Respondent and also perused the materials on record.