ANTONY Vs. VAITHYALINGA CHETTIAR AND ORS

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The present second appeal has been brought by the plaintiff, who filed a suit for declaration and permanent injunction in respect of the suit property on the file of the learned Additional District Munsif Court, Gingee, in O.S.No.351 of 1996, on the ground that the plaintiff has purchased the suit property by a sale deed, dated 25.10.1985, Ex.A2, from one Amalorpavameri, who had purchased from one Periyanayagam, under sale deed, dated 09.04.1972, Ex.A1.

(2.) A detailed written statement was filed by the defendant/respondent herein, taking a stand that the plaintiff is not the absolute owner of the entire suit property, since she had purchased under sale deed, dated 25.10.1985, from one Amalorpavameri, only an extent of 31.5' east-west and 45' north-south. It was also the case of the defendant/respondent herein that after filing of suit, the plaintiff/appellant herein has constructed his house extending on the east-west side more than what the plaintiff has purchased under Ex.A2, sale deed, dated 25.10.1985. Therefore, the prayer sought for by the plaintiff was heavily opposed. Under these circumstances, the trial Court took up the matter and came to the conclusion that since the plaintiff has made categorical and explicit admission that the plaintiff has purchased only an extent of 31.5' east-west and 45' north-south and the defendant has also equally made similar admission that there was no objection for the Court to grant any declaration to that extent, but, however, taking note of the fact that the plaintiff has not properly mentioned the correct description of the property with correct extent of the property, declained to grant the relief sought for. Aggrieved by the same, when an appeal was filed before the learned Sub-Court, Gingee, in A.S.No.21 of 2005, the first appellate Court affirmed the findings and conclusions reached by the trial Court. Aggrieved by the same, the present second appeal has been filed.

(3.) This Court, at the time of entertaining the second appellant, framed the following substantial questions of law;-