THANGARAJ Vs. MARAGATHAM AND ORS.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The Second Appeal stands listed today for admission. The second respondent alone is represented by a counsel. The first respondent is no more and the second respondent has been recorded as legal representative of the first respondent also. The respondents 3 and 4 were not the contesting parties in the Execution Application and in fact, the respondents 1 and 2 claimed derivation of title through respondents 3 and 4. In the first Appellate Court, notice to the respondents 3 and 4 herein was dispensed with. Hence, in the Second Appeal also notice to the respondents 3 and 4 is dispensed with. The arguments advanced by Mr. K. Elangovan, learned counsel for the appellant in the Second Appeal and by Mr. M. Saravanan, learned counsel for the second respondent in the Second Appeal are heard. Copies of the Judgments of the Courts below and copies of the other records produced in the form of typed-set of papers are also perused and taken into consideration.

(2.) The brief narration of facts leading to the filing of the Second Appeal will help us understanding the case and the issues involved in the case.

(3.) The contention of the learned counsel for the appellant is two fold.