T S BELLIERAJ Vs. VINODHINI KRISHNAKUMAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This appeal was posted today for admission and I heard the learned Senior Counsel appearing for the appellant.

(2.) The first defendant in the suit O.S. No.31 of 1996 on the file of District Munsif, Kotagiri is the appellant herein. The Plaintiffs have filed the suit for recovery of possession, mesne profits and for costs. The trial court decreed the su ainst the same, the first defendant has filed an appeal in A.S. No. 43 of 2003 which was also dismissed, hence this present second appeal.

(3.) The facts of the case of the Plaintiffs is that the second defendant in the suit is the father of the Plaintiffs. The Plaintiffs have permitted the second defendant to look after the properties belonged to them in the capacity of guardian. the second defendant, without the knowledge of the plaintiffs have entered into an agreement with the first defendant. According to the Plaintiffs, the second defendant has no authority to enter into agreement for sale. Notices were exchanged between the plaintiffs and the first defendant. It is also the case of the Plaintiffs that the first defendant has no right to remain in possession of the property and his possession can only be treated as trespass, hence the first defendant is liable to pay me sne profits to the plaintiffs.