THANGARAJ Vs. KRISHNAPARAMATHMA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) These appeals are preferred against the impugned common judgment dated 05.02.2008 in AS.Nos.133/2006 and 179/2007. Hence, both the appeals are taken up together for hearing and are disposed of by the following common judgment.

(2.) The respondent/plaintiff filed OS.No.141/2003 praying for recovery of possession and it is the case of the plaintiff that while he was a minor, the suit properties were purchased under Ex.A.3 dated 13.10.1985 and his father, being the next friend and natural guardian, was in possession. The plaintiff/respondent would further aver that the defendants and one Manickam, had given enough trouble and his father Lakshmanan filed OS.No.922/1998 for the relief of permanent injunction against Manickam. Manickam died and prior to his death, the suit in OS.NO.334/1990, on the file of the Sub Court, Salem, was filed for partition and it was not pressed. It is the specific case of the plaintiff that the suit properties are his absolute properties by virtue of Sale Deed [Ex.A.3] dated 13.10.1985 and during the course of trial in OS.NO.922/1998, his father as PW1 as given evidence and only then, he became aware about the trespass committed by the defendants during March, 2000, and hence, came forward to file the present suit.

(3.) Mr. D. Shivakumaran, learned counsel appearing for the appellants would vehemently contend that admittedly, the earlier suit was withdrawn without giving any opportunity to file a fresh suit for the same cause of action and as such, the suit is not maintainable and would further urge that through the testimonies of the revenue officials, the appellants herein, had amply proved that they are in possession of the suit property for over 40 years and thereby, described their title by adverse possession. It is further contended that the Courts below have failed to appreciate the oral and documentary evidences in proper perspectives and prays for interference.