JAYARAMAN S/O RAMASAMY Vs. R KRISHNAN; CHINNAKUZHANDAI @ VIRTHAMBAL; KANNAN S/O POONGAVANAM; RANI D/O POONGAVANAM

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The present second appeal has been directed against the concurrent findings of both the Courts below, raising the following substantial questions of law:-

(2.) When the matter was taken up, Mr.M.Balasubramanian, learned counsel for the first respondent, filing a memo dated 17.2.2014, submitted that the first respondent had already sold the suit property, therefore, he is no longer interested in pursuing this second appeal. The said memo is recorded.

(3.) Mr.T.R.Rajagopalan, learned senior counsel appearing for the appellant/second defendant urged this Court to consider the above two substantial questions of law to interfere with the impugned judgments and decrees by contending that the first appellate Court has not approached the issue rightly and erroneously confirmed the judgment and decree passed by the trial Court, when both the oral and documentary evidence establish the title and possession in the eastern 0.4.25 cents was with the appellant/second defendant for over a statutory period, more particularly, when Exs.B4, B5, B6 and B7 are clearly supporting the case of the appellant/second defendant that the Naidumangalam Panchayat Board had given the house tax receipts to Door No.3/54 belonging to the appellant/second defendant constructed on the eastern half of the suit property, both the Courts below ought not to have decided the issue only on the question of title, when the appellant/second defendant had been in possession of the eastern half for a long time. When the issuance of patta coupled with the production of house tax receipts with reference to a particular door number and enjoyment by the appellant for over a statutory period has been properly placed, a wrong finding has been given by the Courts below only on the basis of title with reference to the sale deed that shows the name of the first respondent/plaintiff, rejecting the case of the appellant that the property was purchased from the income derived from the joint family business, he pleaded.