M.CHANDRABABU Vs. R.THANGARAJ

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE plaintiff, who proved unsuccessful before the trial Court as well as the lower appellate Court, is the appellant in the second appeal. The defendants are the respondents. The suit was filed for declaration of title and mandatory injunction. The trial Court dismissed the suit and the lower appellate Court confirmed the decreed passed by the trial Court.

(2.) NOTICE before admission was issued to the respondents in the second appeal as the Court was of the view at the time of directing issuance of notice that the appeal could be disposed of either way at the time of admission itself. In case of disposal of the appeal at the time of admission, if the result is upsetting of the decree of the lower appellate Court, it shall be necessary to identify and formulate the substantial question (s) of law involved in the second appeal. That does not mean that in case of dismissal such questions need not be identified and formulated. Even after such formulation of the substantial question (s) of law based on which the parties would be allowed to put forth their arguments, the Court may decide the questions against the appellants which would result in the dismissal of the second appeal. Keeping in mind the above said principle, the appeal is to be considered.

(3.) THE suit was resisted by the defendants contending that out of the total extent of 1.48 acres comprised in the original survey No.327/7, 50 cents had already been purchased by Ramachandra Gramani, the father of the first respondent/first defendant; that as rightly contended by the appellant/plaintiff, the balance 98 cents in the family partition fell to the share of Loganatha Gramani; that the said Loganatha Gramani and his son Masilamani Gramani remained undivided and while so, both of them were entitled to equal share in the 98 cents; that Masilamani Gramani, the father of the plaintiff, who was entitled to 49 cents alone, chose to execute a sale in favour of Thangaraj, the first defendant on 14.10.1973 purporting to convey 58 cents, which was 9 cents more than what he was entitled to; that Loganatha Gramani admitting his son's right to = share executed a sale deed in favour of Vedhachalam on 19.10.1973 conveying 49 cents; that the said Vedhachalam in turn sold the property to Ramachandra Gramani, the father of the first respondent/first defendant under a sale deed dated 13.10.1974 and that thus the entire extent of 98 cents came to be owned by Ramachandra Gramani and the first respondent/first defendant. The original sale deed executed by Masilamani Gramani in favour of first respondent/first defendant has been produced as Ex.B10. A certified copy of Ex.B10 has been produced by the plaintiff as Ex.A4. The sale deed executed by Loganatha Gramani in favour of Vedhachalam and the sale deed executed by Vedhachalam in favour of Ramachandra Gramani have been produced as Exs.B11 and B12 respectively. Based on the above said documents, the respondent/defendant contended that the appellant/plaintiff did not have any title or possession in respect of the suit property and the suit filed by the appellant/defendant was also bad for non-joinder of necessary party insofar as the said Ramachandra Gramani, who purchased the share of Loganatha Gramani from his purchaser, was not made a party to the suit.