MARUDHUR RAVI Vs. SV RM RM SEVUGAN CHETTIAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) These revision petitions have been filed against the fair and decreetal order in E.A.Nos.40 of 2014 and 20 of 2015 in E.P.No.40 of 2011 in O.S.No.75 of 2007 dated 17.10.2017 on the file of District Munsif Court, Madurai Talulk.

(2.) The respondent/plaintiff has filed a suit in O.S.No.75 of 2007 for declaration and mandatory injunction to remove the structure put up by the defendant and for recovery of possession of A1 schedule property. The case of the respondent is that he purchased the suit property by way of registered sale deed dated 09.05.1985 from one Maruthumamalai and had been in possession and enjoyment of the same by mutating revenue records. The Government issued patta pass book in the name of the respondent for the subject property. The respondent is a old man residing in Madurai Town away from the suit property which is situated at Narasingam Village. The respondent's vendor has plotted out the land situated on the eastern side of A1 schedule property and sold the same to various third parties. By way of registered sale deed dated 26.06.1982, one P.Balakrishnan has purchased Plot No.14 which is situated on the eastern side of A1 schedule property. In the said deed, the eastern boundary of the plot is shown as ''west of Periyar Kalvoi 9th Division and Maruthumamalai Punjai. The said Maruthumamalai Punjai was sold to the respondent by registered sale deed dated 09.05.1985. In the above sale deed, eastern boundary has been clearly mentioned as the land plotted out and sold to various third parties.

(3.) According to the petitioner, in the plaint in O.S.No.75 of 2007, the respondent/plaintiff mentioned the name of the defendant as ''Maruthoor Ravi, son of P.Balakrishnan''. In the plaint, the plaintiff has mentioned the defendant as woman and the pleadings, prayer in the plaint are incorrect and unsustainable one. According to the petitioner, the respondent/plaintiff has obtained exparte decree on 201.2008. In the exparte judgment, none of the person in the defendant side appeared because no notice was served. In fact, the name and address of the defendant are not correct. The Trial Court simply passed the exparte decree in a cryptic nature. In the judgment, the Trial Court held that ''Today when the suit is taken up, the defendant called absent, set exparte. PW1 chief proof affidavit filed and examined. Ex.A1 to A6 marked. Perused. Claim proved. Hence the suit is decreed with cost as prayed for.'' Based on the exparte decree, the respondent/plaintiff filed E.P.No.40 of 2011 against Maruthoor Ravi, son of P.Balakrishnan.