PATTAMMAL Vs. ARULMIGHU SARNTHARAIKATHA SAMY KOIL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE plaintiff in O.S.No,345 of 1992 on the file of District Munsif, Sirkali who succeeded in the suit, but since the decree obtained by him was reversed by the learned Additional Subordinate Judge, Mayiladuthurai by his judgment and decree passed in A.S.No. 70 of 1998 and being aggrieved by that has preferred the above Second Appeal.

(2.) FOR sake of convenience, the parties are referred to as per their ranking in the suit.

(3.) IT is further contended that after filing the present suit on false ground, the plaintiff had cut and carried away the crops in the third week of February 1993. The sporadic act of the pliantiff will not confer any possession and right to the plaintiff. Now the land is lying fallow. The plaintiff is not in possession of the suit properties. The plaintiff is not a bonafide purchaser and he has no right to question the court auction sale. This defendant did not attempt to take forcible possession on 12.12.1992 as alleged in the plaint. On the aforesaid pleadings, the second defendant sought for dismissal of the suit.