P. NARAYANAN Vs. ALAGARSAMY

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The defendant in O.S.No.81 of 2002 on the file of the Additional District Munsif, Srivilliputhur, is the appellant in this second appeal.

(2.) The suit was filed by one Alagarsamy for declaration and recovery of possession of the suit property. There is no dispute that the suit property originally belonged to Thiru.Mayan @ Mayasamy, father of the plaintiff. According to the plaintiff, the defendant managed to obtain a Will dtd. 25/7/1984 in his name from the plaintiff's father. The said Will marked as Ex.A.1 was later cancelled on 10/1/1990 by Mayan himself. The defendant is none other than the brother's son of Mayan. Taking advantage of the relationship, Narayanan was allowed to be in possession of the property. Following the cancellation of the Will, Narayanan filed a suit against the plaintiff's father and also enforced the decree by filing E.P.No.193 of 1995. Mayan passed away on 3/3/2002. The plaintiff issued notice dtd. 28/2/2002 calling upon the defendant to hand over possession of the suit property. Since the defendant declined to comply with the demand set out in the notice, the suit came to be laid. The defendant filed written statement controverting the plaint averments. Based on the divergent pleadings, the trial Court framed necessary issues. The plaintiff examined himself as P.W.1 and one Solaimalai was examined as P.W.2. Ex.A.1 to Ex.A.5 were marked. The defendant examined himself as D.W.1 and two other witnesses were also examined. Ex.B.1 to Ex.B.7 were marked. After consideration of the evidence on record, the trial Court by judgment and decree dtd. 21/7/2005 decreed the suit as prayed for. Aggrieved by the same, the defendant filed A.S.No.40 of 2006 before the Sub Court, Srivilliputhur. By the impugned judgment and decree dtd. 20/10/2009, the first appellate Court confirmed the decision of the trial Court and dismissed the appeal. Challenging the same, this second appeal came to be filed.

(3.) Though the second appeal was filed way back in the year 2010, only notice was ordered and it has not been admitted till date. In the meanwhile, the plaintiff Alagarsamy passed away and his legal heirs have come on record as respondents 2 to 5.