BOTHUMANI Vs. K RAMEENA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) COMMON Judgment: Second Appeal in S.A. No.565 of 2007 has been preferred against the judgment and decree made in A.S. No.59 of 2006 dated 13.03.2007 on the file of the Subordinate Judge, Ranipet reversing the judgment and decree made in O.S. No.147 of 2003 dated 31.01.2006 on the file of the District Munsif, Sholinghur. The suit in O.S.No.147 of 2003 was filed by the appellant herein seeking permanent injunction restraining the respondents/defendants from interfering with the plaintiff's peaceful possession and enjoyment of the suit property. The suit property is a dry land in S.F.No.212, an extent of 0.05.5 hectares i.e. 0.14 acres, in Bannavaram Village, Arakonam Taluk. It is seen that the suit was dismissed by the Trial Court, however, the same was reversed by the First Appellate Court, aggrieved by which the second appeal has been preferred. Second Appeal in S.A.No.682 of 2007 has been preferred against the judgment and decree dated 13.03.2007 made in A.S. No.58 of 2006 by the said Appellate Court, whereby reversed the judgment and decree passed in O.S. No.135 of 2003 dated 31.01.2006 on the file of the District Munsif, Sholinghur.

(2.) THE suit in O.S. No.135 of 2003 was filed by the respondent/plaintiff seeking permanent injunction restraining the appellant/defendant herein from interfering with the possession and enjoyment of the suit property. THE Schedule of property is an extent of 0.05.5 acres of land in S.No.212/3 Bannavaram village, Arakonam Taluk with specified 4 boundaries. THE suit was dismissed by the trial Court, against which an appeal was preferred in A.S.No.58 of 2006, the said appeal was allowed and the suit was decreed as prayed for by the First Appellate Court. Aggrieved by which, the second appeal has been preferred. In both the suits and appeals the property relating to the dispute is one and the same.

(3.) FOR the sake of convenience, in both second appeals, the parties are referred to in general as appellant, first respondent and second respondent as per the cause title in the Second Appeal in S.A.No.565 of 2007 and the documents and witnesses as stated in the suit in O.S.No.147 of 2003 relating to the said second appeal. According to the appellant, one Murugesa Naicker acquired 14 cents of land in the suit Survey number by way of a sale deed, dated 05.04.1968. He died intestate leaving his wife Saroja, two sons namely Manoharan and Sarathy and four daughters namely Malathy, Vijayanthimala, Jeeva and Chandra. It is not in dispute that the wife of late Murugesa Naicker and his two sons jointly executed a sale deed, Original of Ex.B1, dated 04.06.2003, in favour of the first respondent, Rameena. As per this document, an extent of 7 cents of land out of the 14 cents of land was sold. The said sale deed executed by wife and two sons of Murugesa Naicker is not in dispute which is admittedly on the western side of the suit property.