KARUPPIAH Vs. CHANDRAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) NO appearance for the appellants. This appeal has been directed against the decree and Judgment in A.S.NO.193 of 1996 on the file fo the Subordinate Judge, Virudhunagar, which had arisen out of the decree and Judgment in O.S.NO.92 of 1993 on the file of the District Munsif, Arupukottai. The unsuccessful plaintiffs before the Courts below are the appellants herein.

(2.) THE short facts on the plaint sans irrelevant particulars are as follows- THE plaint schedule property was purchased by the plaintiffs under a sale deed dated 07.04.1992. THE predecessors in title in respect of the plaint schedule property had purchased the same under a sale deed dated 07.01.1926. Patta No.188 was granted in favour of the plaintiffs and before them it stood in the name of Swamitha Pillai, the vendor of the plaintiffs. After the sale deed dated 07.04.1992, the plaintiffs are in possession and enjoyment of the plaint schedule property paying land tax to the Government. THE plaintiffs have also prescribed title to the suit property by their long uninterrupted continuous possession. THE defendant approached the vendor of the plaintiffs with an aim to purchase the plaint schedule property. But before that, the plaintiffs have purchased the same from Swaminatha Pillai, the vendor under the sale deed dated 07.04.1992 and obtained possession. With the help of man power and money power the defendant is now trying to interfere with the possession of the plaint schedule property, which is in possession and enjoyment of the plaintiffs. Hence, the suit for declaration of title and for consequential injunction.

(3.) THE following Substantial Questions of Law are involved in this Second Appeal?