JAYAMANI Vs. G.RANGANATHAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The appellants herein are the legal heirs of deceased Paranthaman and his brother Ranganathan, the plaintiff therein filed a suit in O.S.No.449 of 1994 on the file of District Munsif Court, Gingee against deceased Paranthaman/1st defendant and his wife and daughters/defendants 2 to 6 for the relief of recovery of possession contending that the suit property in Survey No.115/35, a house along with vacant site absolutely belong to him and the same was trespassed by deceased Paranthaman. Hence, the Suit. But, the defendants contended that the suit property, a house along with vacant site belong to 1st defendant absolutely and he has put up a construction and paying house tax from the year of 1979 onwards, thereby denied the plaintiff's claim. During the pendency of the suit proceedings, the 1st defendant/deceased Paranthaman died and his wife and daughters were impleaded as defendants 2 to 6 in the suit.

(2.) For the sake of convenience, the parties are referred as per the ranking in the suit.

(3.) The Trial Court framed four issues and on considering the evidence of both sides, the trial court held that the plaintiff is not entitled for the relief of recovery of possession without claiming declaratory relief over the suit property, thereby the suit was dismissed. Aggrieved over that, the plaintiff preferred an appeal in A.S.No. 10 of 2013 before the Sub-Court, Gingee, wherein the learned first appellate judge framed separate issues and analysed the evidence and documents and finally held that the suit property belong to the plaintiff and his right was already confirmed in the decree passed in O.S.No.277 of 1981, which was ended in a compromise between himself and his father, thereby, the plaintiff is the absolute owner of the property, but it was forcibly occupied and put up further construction by the deceased Paranthaman. Hence, the plaintiff is entitled for recovery of possession. Accordingly, the appeal was allowed and the suit was dismissed. Challenging the said findings, this Second Appeal has been filed.