ANTONY Vs. MUNIAMMAL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE defendant is the appellant. THE appellant filed cmp. No. 922 of 2004 for restitution, pending the second appeal. Notice was ordered to the respondent and it was returned unserved. THE notice sent by certificate of Posting and Registered Post were also returned. THEn paper publication was effected and even then there was no appearance. THEreafter, the second appeal is taken up.

(2.) THE suit was filed by the respondent for declaration and recovery of possession. THE suit was dismissed. THE trial Court found that the plaintiff's claim that there was a landlord tenant relationship was not proved; that the release deed said to have been executed by the plaintiff's father in favour of the defendant is not proved; that the plaintiff has not proved that the suit property belongs to her.

(3.) RELIANCE was placed upon the decision reported in sayyed Usman Saheb and others Vs. Vegisena Sivarama Raju and others (AIR 1950 madras 283), where a Full Bench had held that the Courts have a primary duty to take care that their Acts, though not injury to any of the suitors and therefore has inherent power to order restitution.