KUMARAVEL Vs. MARIAMMAL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE Appellant herein was the second defendant while the respondents 1 and 2 herein were respectively the plaintiff and the first defendant.

(2.) THE plaintiff filed the suit in O.S. No. 134 of 1986 on the file of the District Munsif, Paramakkudi for recovery of possession of the suit property, which is a Government Poromboke, on which a hut has been put up by her, According to her, she has been in possession and enjoyment of the same pursuant to the B memo issued and consequent penalty paid therefor by her and she had been dispossessed by the defendants by way of forceful occupation during her absence.

(3.) LEARNED counsel for the present appellant/second defendant made an arduous attempt before me to make it appear that the judgments of the courts below suffer from serious infirmity of grave error of law, in the sense of not taking due note of the application of the provisions of S. 6 of the Specific Relief Act. In amplification of this argument, he would contend that since the averments the plaint itself indicate that the plaintiff had been duly dispossessed as early as on 15.1.1984 and the suit had been admittedly filed on 28.4.1986, after the lapse of two years, it goes without saying that the suit, as framed, is not maintainable, in as much as more than six months elapsed in filing the suit from the date of such dispossession. He would candidly submit that no doubt, such a defence had not been raised specifically in the written statement; but that will not pose as an insurmountable obstacle, because it is only a pure question of law. He would further state that though such a question had been raised before the lower appellate Court, yet the same had not been given proper consideration, which resulted in serious prejudice having been caused to the case of the appellant.