R RATHNAPPA Vs. V LAKSHMMA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The defendants in O.S. No.433 of 1996 on the file of the learned Subordinate Judge, Hosur are the appellants. The respondent herein is the plaintiff in the suit. The said suit was filed for declaration of titleand for consequential relief of injunction to restrainthe defendants from in any manner interfering with his peaceful possession and enjoyment of the suit property.Subsequently, the suit was amended to include the prayer for recovery of possession and for mesne profits instead of permanent injunction.

(2.) The suitwas dismissed by the trial court. As against the same, an appeal was preferred by the defendants in A.S.No.102of 1998on the file of the III Additional District Judge, Dharmapuri District at Krishnagiri. The appeal was dismissed thereby confirming the decree and judgment of the trial court . As against the same, the defendants are before this Court with this appeal.

(3.) The case of the plaintiff in brief is as follows: The suit propertywasoriginally owned by one Uchappa. According to the plaintiff, she purchased the same by means of aRegistered Sale Deeddated 20.11.1978 for a valuable consideration of Rs.1000/- under Ex.A.1. From the date of purchaseshe was in possession and enjoyment of the property. The defendants have got no title whatsoever over the suit property. Since the defendants made attempts to trespass into the suit property, the suit was filed for declaration of title and for permanent injunction. However, during the pendency of thesuit, according to the plaintiff, the defendants trespassed into the suit property and dispossessed him. Therefore, the suit was amended suitably so as to include the prayer for recovery of possession and for mesne profits instead of permanent injunction.