N. KUPPUSAMY NAIDU Vs. SAROJA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The defendant in the original suit O.S.No.1632 of 1981 on the file of the District Munsif, Poonamalle is the appellant in the second appeal. After obtaining permission to file the suit as an indigent person, the respondent herein filed the above said suit against the appellant herein for a declaration of her title in respect of plaint 'A' schedule property, for recovery of possession of plaint 'A' Schedule property from the appellant herein/defendant, for a direction against the appellant/defendant to pay a sum of Rs.1000/- towards the loss of income from the plaint 'A' schedule property and also for future mesne profits.

(2.) The suit was decreed in part granting a declaration in favour of the respondent herein/plaintiff declaring her title to plaint 'A' schedule properties, granting the relief of recovery of possession in respect of Items 1 and 2 of plaint 'A' schedule properties, directing the appellant/defendant to pay a sum of Rs.1000/- towards the loss of income from Items 1 and 2 of the plaint 'A' schedule properties and directing payment of mesne profits from the date of suit till recovery of possession of Items 1 and 2 of the plaint 'A' schedule properties at the rate of Rs.1000/- per annum. As against the disallowed portion of the claim, the respondent herein/plaintiff preferred an appeal in A.S.No.49 of 1999 before the lower appellate Court. The appellant herein/defendant preferred an appeal in A.S.No.37 of 1997 challenging that part of the decree granted in favour of the respondent herein/plaintiff.

(3.) After a joint hearing of both the appeals, the learned lower appellate Judge (Additional District Judge, FTC III, Chengalpattu at Poonamallee) dismissed both the appeals filed by the respondent herein/plaintiff and the appellant herein/defendant by a common judgment and decree dated 12.12.2002 and thereby confirmed the decree passed by the trial Court, without any modification. As against the dismissal of the appeal filed by the respondent herein/plaintiff in A.S.No.49 of 1995, she did not file any further appeal. On the other hand, the appellant herein/defendant alone has chosen to file the present second appeal on the file of this Court, challenging the dismissal of his appeal in A.S.No.37 of 1995 preferred before the lower appellate Court and praying for setting aside the decree passed against him by the trial Court in O.S.No.1632 of 1981.