CHAKRAPANI MUDALIAR Vs. MALLIKA AMMAL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE plaintiff after loosing his case before both the Courts below preferred the Second Appeal aggrieved by the concurrent findings of the Courts below.

(2.) (i)Originally, the plaintiff/appellant filed a suit seeking a decree to direct the defendant herein to deliver vacant possession of the suit property to the plaintiff/ appellant herein and on his failure to do so within a stipulated time fixed by the Court, delivery may be effected through Court and also sought for direction to enter into the future damages by separate proceedings under Order XX Rule XII CPC so as to pay the same to the plaintiff. (ii) The said suit was dismissed by the learned trial Court. Aggrieved by the said dismissal of the suit, the plaintiff/appellant herein has approached the first appellate Court, namely, the First Additional Subordinate Judge, which also confirmed the findings of the trial Court and dismissed the appeal. Against which the present appeal has been preferred by the appellant.

(3.) WHILE advancing argument on these questions of law it was contended that the suit property was originally allotted in favour of Palaniaandi Mudhaliar by virtue of partition took place between him and his brother vadivel Mudhaliar on 15.11.1967. The land in question is a vacant house site, ad- measuring 2914 sq.ft.( 47 x 52 sq.ft). The said Palaniaandi Mudhaliar died in the year 1987 leaving his wife Rajammal, his daughter Jayalakshmi and his two sons, Chakrapnai, the plaintiff /appellant herein and Murugesan. After some time, Jayalakshmi filed a suit in O.S.No.286 of 1987 claiming 1/12 shares. Similarly, Murugesan filed a suit in O.S.No.249 of 1988 claiming 5/12 share. A preliminary decree was passed on 27.3.1991. As against the said preliminary decree, two appeals, being A.S.Nos.531 and 532 of 1991, were also filed by the plaintiff/ appellant therein. But the appeal in A.S.No.531 of 1991 filed against the OS.No.286 of 1987 was dismissed for non prosecution on 21.10.2010. The other appeal in A.S.No.532 of 1991 filed against OS.No.249 of 1988 was dismissed as settled out of Court and thereby suit in O.S.No.249 of 1998 was dismissed as withdrawn by order dated 03.11.1997.