CHANDRA Vs. KAKUMANI ADIKESAVALU CHETTY CHARITIES

JUDGEMENT

(1.) These two Second Appeals have arisen out of common judgments and decrees of the Courts below, in respect of two suits filed as between the plaintiffs and the defendants, respectively. The suit in O.S.No.1874 of 1987 has been filed by the plaintiff Trust seeking for recovery of possession from the defendants and for payment of damages for unlawfully occupying the suit schedule property. Another suit, in O.S.No.10276 of 1992, was filed by the defendants 4 to 9 in O.S.No.1874 of 1987 for bare injunction in respect of the same subject property. Both the suits were tried together and by a common judgment, the trial Court decreed O.S.No.1874 of 1987 in favour of the plaintiffs and dismissed the suit in O.S.No.10276 of 1992. As against the said judgment and decree passed in O.S.No.1874 of 1986, the defendants 4 to 9 therein have filed A.S.No.565 of 2004 and the same defendants (who are the plaintiffs in O.S.No.10276 of 1992) have filed A.S.No.580 of 2005, challenging the dismissal decree passed in O.S.No.10276 of 1992. By a common judgment, the appellate Court dismissed the appeal in A.S.No.565 of 2004 and partially allowed the appeal in A.S.No.580 of 2005. The said common judgment and decrees are put to challenge by the defendants in the present Second Appeals.

(2.) The dominant ligation is filed by the plaintiffs in O.S.No.1874 of 1987 and therefore, the parties are referred to hereunder according to their litigative status and ranking in the said suit.

(3.) The plaintiffs have approached the trial Court in O.S.No.1874 of 1987 seeking for recovery of possession from the defendants and also for damages for unauthorizedly occupying the suit premises. According to the plaintiffs, the Trust is the owner of the property and they have absolute title over the suit property through various documents, filed along with the plaint, which documents were more than a century old. According to the plaintiffs, the defendants were the legal heirs of one Kanniah Naidu, who was actually working as a Caretaker/Watchman and was employed in the Trust property and he died on 27.12.1980 and thereafter, his legal heirs were also employed as Gardeners/Watchmen.