RAJA Vs. PARAMANATHAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The defendants in the original suit O.S.No.4/1996 on the file of Principal District Munsif, Namakkal, are the appellants. The plaintiffs in the said original suit are the respondents in the second appeal. The respondents herein filed the original suit O.S.No.4/1996 initially for the relief of permanent injunction contending that the suit property, namely an extent of 2.35 Ares comprised in Survey No.349/1 of Mohanur village and two thatched houses bearing door Nos.160/C1 and 160/C2 absolutely belonged to them and the appellants/defendants were attempting to interfere with their peaceful possession and enjoyment of the same. Subsequently, alleging dispossession during the pendency of the suit, the respondents/plaintiffs amended the plaint for a declaration of their title in respect of the said property and for recovery of possession of the same from the appellants herein/defendants.

(2.) The suit was resisted by the appellants herein/defendants contending that the plaintiffs, on the basis of wrong classification of survey numbers in the re-survey, falsely claimed right to the houses belonging to the appellants/defendants, which bear door Nos.160/C3 and 160/C4. It was the further contention of the appellants/defendants that the said land over which the above said houses claimed to be that of the appellants stand, was originally comprised in old Survey No.351/6 and that in the re-survey, it was included in new Survey No.349/1. Besides the said contention, the appellants/defendants also contended that the cause of action originally stated in the plaint and the cause of action stated in the amended plaint were invented for the purpose of the case and that hence the suit must be dismissed.

(3.) The learned trial judge, after framing necessary issues, conducted a trial, at the conclusion of which, pronounced a judgment on 29.10.1999 dismissing the suit filed by the respondents herein/plaintiffs holding that the respondents herein/plaintiffs had not proved either their title or their possession in respect of the suit property. On appeal, the learned Subordinate Judge, Namakkal (lower appellate Judge), reversed the said finding, set aside the decree passed by the trial court and decreed the suit as prayed for in the amended plaint, namely by granting the relief of declaration and recovery of possession. The said decree of the lower appellate court dated 24.01.2005, is challenged in the present second appeal on various grounds set out in the memorandum of grounds of second appeal.