RADHAKRISHNAN Vs. PANDURANGAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The plaintiffs challenge the judgment and decree of the learned District Judge, Villipuram in A.S.No.90 of 1997 date to 28/7/1998 in confirming the judgment and decree of the learned Subordinate Judge at Tindivanam in O.S.No.7 of 1989 dtd. 31/1/1997.

(2.) For the sake of convenience, the parties will be referred to as per their ranks in the suit.

(3.) O.S.No.7 of 1989 is a suit for partition and separate possession. The suit schedule mentioned properties have been earmarked as 'A' schedule and 'B' schedule. Insofar as 'A' schedule properties are concerned, there is no dispute. The trial court decreed the suit declaring 29/49th share in 'A' schedule mentioned property and passed preliminary decree. It dismissed the suit with respect to 'B' schedule mentioned property. The defendants did not prefer an appeal, insofar as the first part of the trial court decree is concerned. It was only the plaintiffs, who had preferred an appeal, aggrieved by the dismissal of the suit with respect to 'B' schedule. The appellate court agreed with the judgment and decree of the trial court with respect to 'B' schedule. Hence, this second appeal.