V.G. RAMASAMY Vs. V.G. SREENIVASAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) S.A.No.1433 of 2002 has been filed by the defendants 2 and 3 against the judgment and decree passed by the First Additional District Judge of Dharmapuri District at Krishnagiri in A.S.No.45 of 1998 dated 29.11.1999 confirming the judgment and decree passed by the Sub-Judge, Krishnagiri in O.S.No38 of 1995 dated 29.01.1998.

(2.) The first respondent in S.A.No.1433 of 2002 viz.,V.G. Srinivasan has filed a suit in O.S.No.49 of 1992 on the file of the District Munsif, Harur, for permanent injunction restraining the defendants therein from trespassing into the suit property. The said suit was subsequently transferred to Sub-Judge, Krishnagiri and renumbered as O.S.No.38 of 1995. The third defendant in that suit viz., V.G.Murugesan has filed a suit in O.S.No.176 of 1992 on the file of the Sub-Judge, Krishnagiri, to divide the suit 'A' schedule properties therein into forty equal shares and allot nine such shares to him and for permanent injunction restraining the defendants therein from alienating or encumbering Item No.2 of the suit 'B' schedule properties therein. The learned Sub-Judge, Krishnagiri, by the common judgment dated 29.01.1998 has decreed the suit in O.S.No.38 of 1995 without costs and dismissed the suit in O.S.No.176 of 1992 without costs. Aggrieved by the same, the defendants in O.S.No.38 of 1995 have filed an appeal in A.S.No.45 of 1998 and the plaintiff in O.S.No.176 of 1992 has filed an appeal in A.S.No.47 of 1998 on the file of the First Additional District Judge of Dharmapuri District at Krishnagiri. The learned First Additional District Judge of Dharmapuri District at Krishnagiri by the common judgment dated 29.11.1999 has dismissed both the appeals without costs. However, he set aside the findings of the trial court that the suit property in O.S.No.38 of 1995 absolutely belongs to the plaintiff therein. Feeling aggrieved, the defendants 2 and 3 in O.S.No.38 of 1995 have filed the second appeal in S.A.No.1433 of 200 The plaintiff in O.S.No.176 of 1992 has filed the second appeal in S.A.No.16 of 200 The plaintiff in O.S.No.38 of 1995 has filed cross objection No.36 of 2018 in S.A.No.1433 of 2002 to set aside the findings of the first appellate court that the trial court's findings that the suit property absolutely belongs to the plaintiff is not correct. For the sake of convenience, the parties are referred to as described in O.S.No.176 of 1992 on the file of the SubJudge, Krishanagiri.

(3.) The averments made in the plaint in O.S.No.176 of 1992 are, in brief, as follows: