LAWS(MAD)-2002-7-171

KARUNEEGAR SANGAM Vs. TAHSILDAR

Decided On July 31, 2002
KARUNEEGAR SANGAM Appellant
V/S
TAHSILDAR Respondents

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The above revision petition has been filed against the order in I.A.529 of 2000 in O.S.629 of 1984 on the file of Principal District Munsif Court, Tiruvannamalai, dismissing the petition filed under Section 10 and 151 of Code of Civil Procedure rejecting the prayer to stay the trial of the suit O.S.629 of 1984 on its file till disposal of S.A.No.1078 of 2000 on the file of this Court.

(2.) Earlier, plaintiff filed a suit in O.S.160 of 1980 on the file of District Munsif Court, Tiruvannamalai praying the Court to grant a decree declaring its title to T.S.No.604/1B2 and for delivery of possession and the same was resisted by the defendants therein. The trial Court dismissed the suit and aggrieved by that, plaintiff filed an appeal in A.S.12 of 1999 on the file of Principal Sub Court, Tiruvannamalai. The appellate Court concurred with the findings of the trial Court and dismissed the appeal and against that petitioner/plaintiff has filed second appeal before this Court and the same is pending as S.A.1078 of 2000.

(3.) Pending second appeal, petitioner/plaintiff filed a second suit in O.S.629 of 1984 on the file of same Court i.e, Principal District Munsif Court, Tiruvannamalai against the respondents herein praying the Court to declare that the order of assignment dated 20.3.1978 passed by the first defendant viz., the Tahsildar, Tiruvannamalai, assigning T.S.No.604/2 in favour of 5th defendant therein is invalid in law and on facts. The claim of the petitioner/plaintiff in the said suit is that it has been in possession and enjoyment of the site in T.S.No.604/2 i.e, subject matter of the second suit and the said property is the only access to the house in T.S.No.604/1B2 since 1905 and that apart, they have also perfected title to the suit property by adverse possession. As already stated, the right claimed with reference to T.S.No.604/2 is the subject matter of the second appeal referred supra.