THARMARAJ Vs. IBRAHIM NADAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Review Application (MD) No.248 of 2017 has been preferred by the defendant in the suit contending that despite of giving all the findings in his favour, the appeal has been remanded to the First Appellate Court, which would an error apparent on the face of the record.

(2.) Review Aplc.(MD)No.89 of 2018 has been filed by the plaintiff contending that the judgment under review is not decided in accordance with section 100 of the Code of Civil Procedure. These applications are heard through videoconferencing.

(3.) The entire gamut of facts, as projected by the plaintiff, is based on the judgements in an earlier suit filed by the plaintiff against the father of the defendant in O.S.No.1683 of 1981, which was for the relief of declaration and injunction. The said suit was given a quietus in the first appeal in A.S.No.59 of 1985 on 21.11.1985. The cause of action for the present suit had arisen in December 2008 alleging that the defendant/the review petitioner has encroached upon the plaintiff's property. In the suit, excepting the title deeds of the plaintiff and the judgements in the previous suit, no other document has been marked by the plaintiff in support of the cause of action alleged, whereas, the defendant had produced relevant documents to establish his title and possession. Though the courts below had concurrently held in favour of the plaintiff, this Court pointed out the error committed by the First Appellate Court and remanded the matter to the First Appellate Court for fresh consideration.