T R THANGAPPAN Vs. CHITRA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This second appeal is focussed by the original plaintiff animadverting upon the judgement and decree dated 17.04.2007 passed in A.S.No.653 of 2005 by the l Fast Track Court No.II -Additional District Judge, City Civil Court, Madras, reversing the judgment and decree of the learned XII Asst. Judge, City Civil Court, Madras in O.S.No.3125 of 2003. The parties are referred to hereunder according to their litigative status and ranking before the trial Court.

(2.) The merits relating to the factual matrix would lie within a narrow campus, which could tersely and briefly be set out thus: (a) The plaintiff filed the suit seeking the following relief: - To grant permanent injunction restraining the defendant and her men, agents, servants or any other persons from encroaching or trespassing into the suit property or in any manner interfering with the plaintiff's peaceful possession and enjoyment of scheduled property till the disposal of this suit. (extracted as such) (b) The written statement was filed resisting the suit. (c) Whereupon the trial Court framed the relevant issues. (d) The plaintiff-Thangappan examined himself as P.W.1 and Exs.A1 to A7 were marked. On the side of the defendant, one Mr.S.Marudamuthu was examined as D.W.1 and Exs.B1 to B6 were marked. (e) Ultimately the trial Court dismissed the suit as against which appeal was filed for nothing but to be dismissed by the appellate Court confirming the judgment and decree of the trial Court.

(3.) Challenging and impugning the judgments and decrees of both the Courts below, this Second Appeal has been filed on various grounds inter alia to the effect that the Courts below gave an erroneous finding as though the western side owner of the plaintiff's property encroached an extent of 10 feet and as such the suit was a misconceived one, even though absolutely there is no iota or shred, shard or miniscule extent of evidence to justify and fortify such finding by both the Courts below.