RUKMANI AMMAL Vs. KARUPPA GOUNDER

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE appellant/plaintiff has projected this instant Second Appeal as against the judgment and decree dated 31.5.2001 in A.S.No.121 of 2000 passed by the Learned Additional District Judge, Tiruvannamalai, in reversing the judgment and decree dated 27.6.2000 in O.S. No. 216 of1996passed by the Learned District Munsif-Cum-Judicial Magistrate, Chengam.

(2.) THE First Appellate Court viz., the Learned Additional District Judge, Tiruvannamalai, while passing the judgment in A.S. No. 121 of 2000 (filed by the respondents/defendants as appellants) on 31.5.2001, has inter alia held that 'The respondent/plaintiff has failed to establish her case and claim to the hi It and as such, not been in agreement with the findings of the trial Court in holding that the oral sale is a true one and that the respondent/plaintiff has proved her prescribed title and enjoyment by Adverse Possession and consequently, allowed the Appeal, leaving the parties to bear their own costs, thereby, setting aside the judgment and decree passed by the trial Court in the main suit.'

(3.) THE trial Court, on an appreciation of entire oral and documentary evidence available on record, has come to a consequent conclusion that 'the appellant/plaintiff, 12 years before filing of the suit, with the knowledge of the respondents/defendants, has been in enjoyment of the suit property and as such, acquired the right of Adverse Possession and viewed in that perspective, granted the relief of declaration in respect of suit property in favour of the appellant/plaintiff and also, granted the relief of permanent injunction and passed a Decree without costs to the effect.'