S. DHANASEKAR Vs. K. BALAKRISHNAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The brief facts of the case as follows: The respondent/plaintiff has filed a suit in O.S.No.24 of 2012 for permanent injunction against the appellant from interfering with the peaceful possession and enjoyment of the suit property. According to the plaintiff, the suit property originally belonged to one Mariappa Pillai by virtue of a registered sale deed, dated 28.1.1983. A sale agreement, dated 31.10.2004 was entered into between the respondent/plaintiff and the legal heirs of the deceased Mariappa Pillai. Subsequently, the respondent/plaintiff has also purchased the adjacent house site from the legal heirs of Mariappa Pillai by registered sale deed, dated 11.2.2005. The plaintiff is in possession and enjoyment of the same. The appellant/defendant is having house site on the western side of the plaintiff's house site. The defendant attempted to remove the boundary stones in the suit property and to trespass into the suit property. The respondent/plaintiff was examined as P.W.1 and Ex.A1 to A7 were marked. Since the defendant has not entered appearance, ex-party decree has been passed against the defendant. Aggrieved by the ex-parte decree, dated 11.1.2013, the defendant had filed an appeal in A.S. No. 52 of 2013.

(2.) Before the Appellate court, the appellant/defendant contended that the trial court failed to record reasons to pass judgement and decree in favour of the respondent/plaintiff. The lower appellate court considering the oral and documentary evidence adduced by the respondent/plaintiff and the grounds raised by the appellant/defendant, confirmed the judgement and decree passed by the trial Court and dismissed the appeal. Challenging the judgement and decree passed by the Courts below, the defendant/appellant has filed the present Second Appeal.

(3.) This court framed the following substantial questions of law involved, for entertaining the Second Appeal and for further consideration.