CHINNA PILLAI AMMAL Vs. MANNANGATTI PADAYACHI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE appellants are the legal representatives of the deceased plaintiff and the respondents are the defendants before the trial Court.

(2.) THE deceased plaintiff is one Pavadai Padayachi. He laid the suit for declaration of his title to the B Schedule property and for recovery of possession of the plaint B Schedule property. THE plaint B Schedule property in this suit is an extent of 134 feet into 25 feet in R.S.Nos.17/1 and 17/10 of Ulunthandar Kovil village. It is further stated in the description of the plaint B schedule property that this vacant site measuring 134 feet into 25 feet was shown in the plaint plan in the earlier suit filed between the parties in O.S. No. 164 of 1967 as 'B Schedule Property. THE respondents/defendants resisted the suit for declaration of absolute title of the deceased plaintiff to the suit properties and for recovery of possession by stating that the deceased plaintiff is not the absolute owner of the suit properties, and the deceased plaintiff has got brothers and they are also entitled to the suit properties.

(3.) IN the earlier suit in O.S. No. 164 of 1967 the title of the 1st defendant in the present suit by name Mannangatti Padayachi was negatived by both the Courts and both the courts held that the defendant herein are trespassers in respect of the suit property, which is the plaint B Schedule, measuring 134 feet into 25 feet. There cannot be any dispute on the point that the defendants herein viz., Mannangatti Padayachi and his wife Anajali Ammal have no title to the plaint B Schedule of this suit and they are in possession of the suit properties illegally as trespassers. IN the above background we have to consider the claim of the deceased plaintiff in the present suit in O.S. No. 198 of 1977 out of which the present second appeal in arises.