RAJALAKSHMI Vs. RAMADOSS

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS second appeal has been directed against the decree and judgment in A. S. No. 79 of 1995 on the file of the Court of Subordinate Judge, Mayiladuthurai, which had arisen out of the decree and judgment in O. S. No. 29 of 1986 on the file of the Court of District Munsif, Sirkali. The plaintiff, who had succeed before the trial Court and got a decree for bare injunction, has lost the same in the first appeal A. S. No. 79 of 1994 preferred by the defendant, has filed this second appeal. Pending second appeal, the appellant / sole plaintiff died and her son has been impleaded as LR of the deceased plaintiff.

(2.) THE short facts of the plaint relevant for the purpose of deciding this second appeal are as follows:-

(3.) THE defendants in their joint written statement would contend that the defendants are residing on the west of the plaint schedule property and are enjoying the plaint schedule property for the past 30 years by selling lime stone. The plaintiff was never in possession and enjoyment of the plaint schedule property and the plaintiff never visited the plaint schedule property to the knowledge of the defendants. The plaintiff is residing at Poraiyur Village, which is situated 6 kms away from the plaint schedule property, and her children are residing at various other towns. The alleged certificate issued by the VAO, to show that the plaintiff is in possession of the plaint schedule property was created by the plaintiff for the purpose of this case. The allegation that the defendants have made an attempt to trespass into the plaint schedule property on 6. 1. 1986 is false. On the other hand, the defendants are in possession and enjoyment of the plaint schedule property over the past 50 years. Defendants are conducting lime stone business and also firewood business in the plaint schedule property for the past 30 years. The defendants have thus prescribed title to the plaint schedule property by way of their long continuous adverse possession. The residential place of the defendants and the plaint schedule property, which is situated adjoining to the property, in which the defendants are residing on the east are being enjoyed by the defendants. The plaintiffs have no cause of action to file the suit. Hence, the suit is liable to be dismissed with costs.