LAWS(MAD)-2011-9-333

KARUNAKARAN Vs. SENTHAMARAI

Decided On September 28, 2011
KARUNAKARAN AND OTHERS Appellant
V/S
SENTHAMARAI Respondents

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE unsuccessful defendants in O.S.No.281 of 2001 on the file of the I Additional District Munsif Court, Ulundurpet, are the appellants.

(2.) THE respondent/ plaintiff filed the suit for declaration and recovery of possession of the suit property from the 4th defendant. THE respondent/ plaintiff filed the suit stating that the suit property was assigned to him by the Government under the assignment order dated 30.12.1993 and ever since the date of assignment, he was in possession and enjoyment of the same. THE father of the defendants 1 and 2 and husband of the 3rd defendant Periyasamy challenged the assignment order in favour of the plaintiff/ respondent and that was rejected by the Revenue Divisional Officer after enquiry. Even thereafter the father of the defendants 1 and 2 Periyasamy along with one Subburayalu attempted to interfere with the plaintiff's possession and enjoyment, he filed the suit in O.S.No.833 of 1995 and obtained interim order and thereafter the said Periyasamy did not interfere and the case was not prosecuted further. After the death of Periyasamy, when the plaintiff/ respondent had gone to Bangalore to eke out his livelihood, the defendants 1 and 2 entered into the suit property and put the 4th respondent in possession of the property and therefore the suit was filed for declaration and for recovery of possession.

(3.) THE trial Court decreed the suit holding that the earlier suit O.S.No.833 of 1995 will not operate as res judicata as it was not decided on merits and as per Ex.A1, the suit property was assigned in favour of the respondent/ plaintiff and Ex.A4 would also prove the possession of the respondent/ plaintiff and the appellants claimed to have purchased the property from Subburayalu and that sale was an unregistered one and no title passed under the said document and it was also not proved how Subburayalu got the property and held that the respondent/ plaintiff proved her title and therefore she is entitled to declaration and recovery of possession.