PERIYANNA GOUNDER Vs. RAMASAMY (DIED)

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Challenge in this second appeal is directed against the judgment and decree dated 22.09.2003 passed in A.S.No.127 of 1999 on the file of the Subordinate Court, Sankari, partly reversing the judgment and decree dated 31.08.1999 passed in O.S.No.78 of 1995 on the file of the District Munsif Court, Sankari.

(2.) The second appeal has been admitted on the following substantial question of law.

(3.) After hearing the submissions put forth by the learned counsel for the appellant and the learned senior counsel for the respondent, in my considered opinion, I found that the abovesaid substantial question of law formulated in this matter does not arise for any consideration as such, and the issue involved in this matter has to be sorted out on other aspects as determined by the first appellate court. Suffice to state that the suit has come to be laid by the respondent against the appellant for declaration of his title to the plaint A schedule property and also for directing the appellant to put the respondent in possession of the B schedule property. Thus, according to the respondent, the B schedule property forms part of the A schedule property and it is stated that, while the respondent was away at Chennai, the appellant on 08.10.1994 during the closure of the Courts for Dhassera holidays, encroached and ploughed the B schedule property belonging to the respondent and annexed the same with his property and inasmuch as, he had refused to accede to the request of the respondent to deliver the possession of the B schedule property to the respondent, he has been necessitated to lay the suit for appropriate reliefs.