PONNAN ALIAS PALANIAPPAN Vs. CHINNA GOUNDER DIED

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE unsuccessful defendants, having lost before the courts below, preferred this second appeal. THE sole plaintiff died pending second appeal and his legal representatives were impleaded as respondents 2 to 4 as per the orders of this Court dated 23. 2. 1996.

(2.) THE brief facts leading to filing of the original suit are that the deceased plaintiff purchased the suit property on 23. 6. 1965 for valid consideration from one Ramasamy Gounder's wife Veerammal and her sons kuppusamy and Perumal, and eversince the date of purchase, he was in absolute possession and enjoyment of the same. THE adjacent land belongs to one vellaiyan @ Karuppanna Gounder, elder brother of the first respondent. Next to that, lies the land of defendants, on the southern and eastern side of plaintiff's land. THE specific case of the plaintiff is that he is the absolute owner of the suit property, enjoying the same by raising groundnut crops. Such being the case, the plaintiff alleged that on 15. 10. 1989 the defendants attempted to lay a pathway in the land of the plaintiff by destroying the crops stood therein. Hence the suit was filed for permanent injunction restraining the defendants from in any manner interfering with the peaceful possession and enjoyment of the suit property.

(3.) THIS Court, while admitting the second appeal, framed the following substantial question of law for consideration, Whether the Courts below are correct in not going into the question of prescriptive right, especially where evidence was let in to prove the same and also where the appellants have raised the plea of easementary right"