G ANANDHAN Vs. V PALANI PADAYACHI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE defendant in O.S. No. 1186 of 1985 on the file of the District Munsif, Cuddalore, has filed the present appeal against the order of remand made by the learned District Judge, South Arcot at Cuddalore in A.S. No. 81 of 1989.

(2.) THE respondent/plaintiff instituted the suit O.S. No. 1186 of 1985 on the file of the District Munsif, Cuddalore, for a declaration of title, recovery of possession and for future mesne profits. It is contended by the plaintiff that he had purchased the suit property and the properties situate on the north, south and west thereof from one Lilly Daniel in and by sale deed dated 27-1-1980 for valid consideration, that possession also was handed over, that a thatched house was put up in the property, that the same was leased out to the defendant's father on a monthly rent of Rs. 15/-, that a rent deed dated 1-11-1980 was also executed by the defendant's father and that the defendant's father was living there with his sons. According to the plaintiff, for convenience, a partition wall was raised and that the defendant's father and his brother Ponnu David were in occupation of a portion while the defendant occupied the other portion and that the defendant's father handed over possession of the western portion of the thatched house and that the defendant promised to vacate the eastern portion in his occupation. THE plaintiff would further aver that he is living in a poramboke which belongs to a Church, that though he has an interest in the house at Anaikuppam, he is not in a position to occupy the same as his other brothers are living there and since the defendant refused to vacate the suit property, the suit has been laid for the above mentioned reliefs.

(3.) THE learned District Munsif who tried the suit, decreed the same. Aggrieved by the judgment and decree of learned District Munsif the defendant preferred an appeal in A.S. No. 81 of 1989 on the file of the District Judge, Cuddalore. THE learned District Judge found that the description of property as found in plaint does not correlate with the documents produced. However, without dismissing the suit, the learned District Judge remanded the case to the trial court. Aggrieved by the same, the defendant has preferred the present appeal.