MIJAJUNNISSA Vs. M THAJUL HUDHA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) CHALLENGE is made to an order of the learned Additional subordinate Judge, Mayiladuthurai, made in E. A. No. 75 of 2002 in O. S. No. 37 of 1984.

(2.) THE revision petitioners, who failed in their attempt before the Court below in the said application, have brought forth this revision. It was contended by them before the lower Court that O. S. No. 37/84 was filed in which it was contended that'a'Schedule property was with the first plaintiff, and'b'Schedule property was with the plaintiffs 2 to 7; that a decree has also been passed; that the delivery has also been ordered; that'a' and'b'Schedule properties belonged to the petitioners 1 and 2 and another sister Navurunnisa Begum; that they have been in possession of the property; that there were two other suits filed in respect of'a'and'b'Schedule properties one between the first plaintiff and his brother Abdullah in o. S. No. 5/63 and the other between the first plaintiff and the father of the petitioners herein in O. S. No. 4/63, whereby declaration was sought for; that the said Abdullah died; that his legal representatives were added as parties, who are the respondents 2 to 7 herein; that it ended in favour of the respondents 1 to 7; that though it ended in their favour, the properties were not taken from the father of the petitioners; that these petitioners'father abdulsalam was in continuous possession of the property from 1959 till his life time in 1998; that thereafter, the petitioners have been in possession and enjoyment along with their sister Navurunnisa Begum, and thus, they have been in continuous possession for more than the statutory period; that in view of the fact that delivery was not taken at all, and the petitioners have been in possession and enjoyment of the properties without any interruption for more than the statutory period, they are the owners of the properties, and hence, the application was to be allowed. THE application was seriously opposed by the opposite party namely the petitioners in the E. P. On enquiry, the application was dismissed by the Court below. Hence, this revision has arisen before this court.

(3.) IN the result, this civil revision petition is dismissed. No costs. Consequently, connected MP is closed. .