BHOJA GOWDER Vs. A RANGA GOWDER

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The present Second Appeal has been preferred by the unsuccessful defendants after being aggrieved by the concurrent findings of both the courts below.

(2.) This is a case where the plaintiffs-A.Ranga Gowder and K.Kasthuri Sundarraj filed a suit for delivery of possession of the suit schedule property to them on the ground that the suit property known as the "Fair Land Bungalow" was purchased by the first plaintiff and late A.Kalla Gowder by sale deed dated 07.10.1993 bearing Document No.263/94 on the file of Sub-Registrar Office, Kotagiri. From the date of purchase of the suit property the same has been in exclusive possession and enjoyment of the first plaintiff and his elder brother A.Kalla Gowder until his death. After the death of A.Kalla Gowder, his legal representatives are in possession and enjoyment of the same as the absolute owners thereof. Subsequently, the suit property was put in possession of T.Velappan, son of late Thillaimani of Aduvacombai, Kotagiri, the Nilgiris, on the permission granted by the plaintiffs by virtue of the agreement dated 08.04.1996. After some time, the said T.Velappan surrendered the possession of the suit property to the first plainttiff. From the date of said surrender by Mr.T.Velappan, the possession of the suit property has been with the plaintiffs. For the reason that during the second week of February 2003 the same was lying vacant, the defendants trespassed into the said property illegally. Subsequently, after the trespass by the defendants, a criminal case has been registered against them in Cr.No.145/2003 on the file of the Kotagiri Police Station. The defendants obtained anticipatory bail and the criminal case is pending. These facts, according to the plaintiffs/respondents, clearly showed that the plaintiffs are the absolure owners of the suit property. On that basis, when the defendants sought to interfere with the possession and enjoyment of the suit property, the suit was filed by the plaintiffs for delivery of the same to them.

(3.) Under this background, the trial Court framed the following two issues: