C A RAMASAMTY Vs. KARUPPANA GOUNDER

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS second appeal is filed by the plaintiff, inveighing the judgement and decree dated 30.11.2009 passed by the Principal Sub Court, Gobichettipalayam, in A.S.No.34 of 2009 confirming the judgement and decree dated 3.2.2009 passed by the District Munsif Court, Sathyamangalam, in O.S.No.368 of 1998, which was filed for declaration and permanent injunction.

(2.) THE merits relating to the factual matrix lie within a narrow campus, which could succinctly and precisely be set out thus: THE appellant herein, as plaintiff, filed the suit seeking the following reliefs: "to pass a judgement and decree a) granting a permanent injunction against the defendants, their men and agents restraining them from interfering with the plaintiff's peaceful possession and enjoyment of the suit property in any manner. b) awarding costs."(extracted as such) (b) THE respondents/defendants resisted the suit by filing written statement. (c) Whereupon the trial Court framed the issues. THE plaintiff on his side examined himself as P.W.1 along with P.W.2 to P.W.4 and marked Ex.A1 to A8. On the defendants' side, no one was examined, however Ex.B1 was marked. Exs.X1 to X11 were marked as 3rd party documents. Exs.C1 and C2 were marked as Court documents. (d) Ultimately, the trial Court dismissed the suit, as against which, the appeal was filed for nothing but to be dismissed by the appellate Court, confirming the judgement and decree of the trial Court.

(3.) ON hearing both sides, I am of the considered view that the following substantial question of law could be framed for consideration. 1. Whether the Court appointed Advocate Commissioner demarcated with reference to Ex.B1-the sale deed dated 28.10.1963, the old Survey No.237 from other survey numbers situated towards South of it. 2. Whether there is any perversity or illegality in the judgements and decrees of the Courts below?