LAWS(MAD)-2015-9-147

SEERANGAN AND ORS. Vs. MURUGAN

Decided On September 18, 2015
Seerangan And Ors. Appellant
V/S
MURUGAN Respondents

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE defendants in the original suit are the appellants in the second appeal. The respondent herein filed the suit for the relief of declaration and recovery of possession in respect of the suit property.

(2.) THE respondent/plaintiff based his claim on the contention that he purchased the suit property measuring 7 cents under a sale deed dated 11.02.1981 and the appellants/defendants, who do not have any title or right in respect of the suit property, has trespassed into the suit property and are residing therein and that hence, he was forced to approach the court with the suit for declaration and recovery of possession.

(3.) BASED on the above said pleadings, necessary issues were framed and the learned trial Judge conducted a trial in which the plaintiff alone appeared as the sole witness (PW1) on his side and produced 10 documents marked as Exs. A1 to A10 whereas three witnesses were examined as Dws 1 to 3 and four documents were marked as Exs. B1 to B4 on the side of the appellants herein/defendants. The learned trial judge, on an appreciation of evidence held that the respondent herein/plaintiff did not provide a proper description of the suit property since the houses put up therein bearing Door Nos. 10/88 and 10/89 were not shown in the schedule of properties. The learned trial Judge also accepted the plea of the appellants/defendants that the purchase was jointly made by the respondent herein/plaintiff and the first appellant/first defendant and that subsequently there was a partition in which they got 1/2 share each in the suit property along with a house in each one of such share. The learned trial Judge also held that the cause of action alleged, namely the alleged trespass made by the defendants on 24.07.1994 was not proved. Based on the said findings, the learned trial Judge non -suited the plaintiffs for the relief sought for in the plaint with the result, the suit was dismissed without costs by the trial Court by its judgment and decree dated 07.11.1996.