JAYAVEERAN Vs. K ANTONY

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS second appeal has been filed by the first defendant, inveighing the judgment and decree dated 14.3.2006 passed by the Additional Subordinate Court, Salem, in A.S.No.180 of 2005, confirming the judgment and decree dated 1.9.2005 passed by the 2nd Additional District Munsif, Salem, in O.S.No.933 of 1998, which was filed seeking permanent injunction.

(2.) THE parties, for the sake of convenience, are referred to here under according to their litigative status and ranking before the trial Court.

(3.) MY learned predecessor, from the available materials, framed the following substantial questions of law as under: (i) When the plaintiff Antony, son of Karuppan, admits in his evidence that he has been in army till 31.8.1984, are the Courts below correct in law in holding that the 'B' memo dated 23.2.1983 which is given in favour of Antony, son of Masilamani is the one relatable to the plaintiff. (ii) When Exhibits B3 and B7 of 1983 clearly show that the plaintiff is not Antony, who was issued 'B' memo and that it was another Antony, son of Masilamani, are the Courts below correct in law in granting a decree for permanent injunction in favour of the plaintiff viz., Antony, son of Karuppan. (iii) When the P.W.2 has clearly deposed that the Antony referred to in 'B' memo (Exhibit B3) pertains only to Masilasmani's son Antony, are the Courts below correct in law in not adverting their judicial mind over this fact for the purpose of dismissing the suit. (extracted as such)