MUTHULAKSHMI Vs. VEDAVALLI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The Appellants/Plaintiffs have focussed this Second Appeal adverting upon the Judgment and Decree of the Learned Principal District Judge, Nagapattinam in A.S.No.189 of 2000 dated 22.06.2001 in confirming the Judgment and Decree dated 07.11.2000 in O.S.No.163 of 1998 passed by the Learned Principal Subordinate Judge, Nagapattinam.

(2.) The First Appellate Court, while delivering the Judgment in A.S.No.189 of 2000 (filed by the Appellants/Plaintiffs) and in A.S.No.53 of 2001 [filed by the Defendants 2 and 3) on 22.06.2001, has, inter alia, observed that an oral partition has taken place during the year 1968 between Marimuthu and D.W.1 which has been accepted and acted upon and as such, the Appellants are barred from demanding partition after Ex.B.2-Mortgage Deed dated 28.02.1985 and also that the 1st Respondent [1st Defendant] has prescribed title by adverse possession to the western portion of the suit property and as such, the Appellants are not entitled to any relief much less the relief of partition and resultantly, dismissed the Appeal A.S.No.186 of 2000 without costs and further opined that in view of the fact that since D.W.1 has prescribed title by adverse possession by co-owner, the lower Court decree and judgment is correct and consequently, dismissed the Appeal A.S.No.53 of 2001 without costs.

(3.) Earlier, before the trial Court in the main suit, 1 to 3 issues have been framed for determination. On behalf of the Appellants/ Plaintiffs, witnesses P.W.1 to P.W.4 have been examined and Exs.A.1 to A.11 have been marked. On behalf of the Defendants, witnesses D.W.1 to D.W.3 have been examined and Exs.B.1 to B.25 have been marked.