RAMAKRISHNAN Vs. MAYILSAMY

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE fourth defendant in the suit is the appellant in this second appeal. THE Plaintiffs/respondents 1 and 2 herein have filed O.S. No. 590 of 1987 before the District Munsif Court, Pollachi for declaration to declare their title over the suit property, permanent injunction to restrain the third defendant/5th respondent herein from changing or cancelling the Patta dated 23.12.1986 issued in their favour under UDR Scheme and permanent injunction restraining the fourth defendant/appellant herein, defendants 5 and 6/respondents 7 and 8 herein from interfering with the possession and enjoyment of the suit property. THE suit was decreed as prayed for. THE appeal filed by the appellant herein was also dismissed, hence the present second appeal.

(2.) FOR the sake of convenience, the parties shall be referred as they were arrayed before the trial court.

(3.) THIS second appeal was admitted based on the following substantial Questions of Law:-"1. Is the suit claim maintainable and not barred by res judicata as provided in Section 43 and bar of jurisdiction prescribed in Section 46 of the Tamil Nadu Minor Inams (Abolition and Conversion into Ryotwari) Act, 1963 as the proceedings under the Act was allowed to become final?. 2. Whether the courts below erred in law in declaring that the Plaintiffs are entitled to the suit property contrary to the revenue records and when the plaintiffs have failed to establish their possession and enjoyment of the suit properties for over the statutory period and when the plaintiff has restricted his claim to a lesser extent?.