KANDASAMY MUDALIAR Vs. MUTHU MUDALIAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The second defendant who was successful in resisting a suit for declaration of title and for permanent injunction along with other defendants before the trial Court in O.S.No.12/1983, but suffered a reversal in the first appeal preferred in A.S.No.70/1992, has approached this Court with this second appeal. Parties would be referred to by their ranks before the trial Court.

(2.) The rival pleadings on either side can be briefly stated:

(3.) 1 The dispute went to trial. During trial the first plaintiff examined himself as P.W.I, while the first defendant examined himself as D.W.I. Both sides examined their respective vendors also. While the plaintiffs examined their cousin cum one of their vendors Thaiyalnayagi as P.W.2, the first defendant examined his vendor Thangavelu Mudaliar as D.W.2. Besides, the defendants 1 and 2 examined a certain Kothai Ammal as D.W.3 . Yet another witness which is critical to the case of the defendant is one Marimuthu Mudaliyar, who was examined as D.W.5. Their role will be made relevant at the appropriate places in this judgment. Of the documentary evidences, Ext.A-4 to A-6 sale deeds involving adjacent plots are relevant, and they are dated between 26/5/1933 and 20/10/1936. In this sale deeds one of the boundaries was shown as Manickam's property.