KUMAR Vs. GOPAL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) For the sake of convenience, the parties will be referred to as per their litigative status in O.S.No.267 of 2008.

(2.) The plaintiff in O.S.No.267 of 2008 had filed the suit for :

(3.) The case of the plaintiff is that the properties originally belonged to one Kannan and Ramasamy, who are sons of one Arumugam. The plaintiff had purchased the same by way of two sale deeds dated 05.01.1985 and 06.12.19683, which are marked as Exs.A.1 and A.5 respectively. According to the plaintiff, the revenue records are still reflect the name of his vendors. The defendants 1 and 2 are the sons of one of the vendors of the plaintiff, namely, Kannan. It is stated that the defendants 1 and 2 tried to create a forged document and attempted to trespass into the suit property. They had also applied for change of patta in their names. Hence, the plaintiff was constrained to file the suit seeking the abovesaid reliefs.