T. RAJARAMAN Vs. M.P. NETHAJI AND ORS.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Though respondents No.1, 4 and 41 have chosen to enter appearance through counsel, the counsel for respondents No.4 and 41 are absent. The counsel for the 1st respondent alone is present. Respondents No.2, 3 and 5 to 40 were served with notice and their names have been printed in the cause list, still they have not chosen to enter appearance either in-person or through counsel. Notice to the respondents No.42 to 48 has been dispensed with by order dated 01.02.2016.

(2.) The arguments advanced by Mr.T.Murugamanickam, learned counsel for the petitioner and by Mr.S.T.Deiveegarajan for Mr.C.D.Sugumar, learned counsel for the 1st respondent are heard.

(3.) O.S.No.1074 of 1982 came to be filed by Kanniammal and eight others against Karima Beebee, Asha Beebee, Maimoon Beebee and 'Kalki' Anantha Narayanan arraying them as defendants 1 to 4 seeking a declaration of their title in respect of the suit property, namely, 45 cents of land comprised in survey No.53/2 in Koyambedu Village, the then Saidapet Taluk and for a permanent injunction restraining the defendants from trespassing into the suit property. The defendants 1 to 3 did enter appearance by engaging counsel and the 4th defendant remained ex parte. The defendants 1 to 3, who initially entered appearance also remained ex parte and an ex parte trial came to be conducted, which resulted in the passing of an ex parte decree as prayed for in the plaint. The said decree came to be passed on 31.03.1983. Thereafter, none of the defendants therein chose to file any application to set aside the ex parte decree.