VANNAMMAL Vs. KOTTAI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) AS against the concurrent findings of the Courts below defendant has preferred this Second Appeal.

(2.) THE case of the plaintiff is that the suit property in survey No. 428/1 is his ancestral property. During the settlement proceedings, patta was granted in favour of the Plaintiff's father Kumaran. According to plaintiff, Patta was changed in the name of Plaintiff and their ancestor, and they have been in long possession and enjoyment and paying kist etc. to the Suit property. Alleging that Defendant is threatening to interfere with his possession and apprehending trespass, Plaintiff has filed the suit for permanent injunction.

(3.) CHALLENGING the concurrent findings, Defendant has filed this Second Appeal. The following substantial question of law was formulated at the time of admission of the Second Appeal. "whether the Courts below were correct in decreeing the suit filed by the plaintiff by rejecting the certified copy of the sale deed, filed by the defendant and marked as Exhibit B1. ?"