EZHUMALAI Vs. M. MURUGESAN AND ORS.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE 1st defendant in O.S.No. 8164 of 2010 on the file of the learned II Assistant Judge, City Civil Court, Chennai is the appellant herein. The respondents 1 and 2 are the plaintiffs in the suit and the 3rd respondent is the 2nd defendant in the suit. The said suit was filed seeking declaration that the decree and judgment passed by the learned III Assistant Judge, City Civil Court, Chennai in O.S.No. 3513 of 2006 dated 11.09.2007 is void on the ground of fraud, collusion and misrepresentation and for declaration that the 1st defendant was never in possession of the suit property as a tenant and also for permanent injunction to restrain the 1st defendant from interfering with the peaceful possession and enjoyment of the plaintiffs in the suit property. The trial court decreed the suit by decree and judgment dated 23.12.2011. As against the same, the appellant herein filed an appeal in A.S.No. 177 of 2012 before the learned VII Additional Judge, City Civil Court, Chennai. By decree and judgment dated 19.08.2014, the lower appellate court dismissed the appeal thereby confirming the decree and judgment of the trial court. Challenging the same, the appellant/1st defendant is before this Court with this Second Appeal.

(2.) THIS Second Appeal has come up before me for admission. I have heard the learned Counsel for the appellant and I have also perused the records carefully.

(3.) THE appellant/the 1st defendant in his written statement has stated that he was in possession and enjoyment of the suit property as a tenant and he was dispossessed in the month of November, 2004 and therefore, he filed the suit for restoration of possession. The suit was decreed ex -parte since the plaintiffs had remained ex -parte. It is also contended that there is a collusion between the plaintiffs and the 2nd defendant.