THANGARAJ Vs. BALARAMAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) O.S.No,401 of 1997 was filed by oneBalaramanas against Thangaraj, seeking permanent injunction in respect of an immovable property whereas the said Thangaraj filed the suit O.S.No,402 of 1997 as against the saidBalaramanseeking declaration and recovery of possession in respect of a portion of the same suit property. Joint trial was conducted and the trial Court dismissed the suit O.S.No,402 of 1997 filed by Thangaraj and decreed the suit O.S.No,401 of 1997 for injunction, in favour of Balaraman.

(2.) ANIMADVERTING upon the common judgment and decrees passed by the trial Court, the said Thangaraj preferred two appeals A.S.No,75 of 2001 (O.S.No,401 of 1997) and A.S.No,77 of 2001 (O.S.No,402 of 1997) for nothing but to be dismissed confirming the judgment and decrees of the trial Court. Whereupon, these Second Appeals have been filed.

(3.) THE said Thangaraj, the defendant in O.S.No,401 of 1997 filed the suit O.S.No,402 of 1997 setting out the facts which are virtually found set out in the written statement filed by him in O.S.No,401 of 1997. Thangaraj also would further aver to the effect that during the pendency of the earlier suit, the saidBalaramantrespassed into the suit property and put up a hut in a portion of it with the help of criminal elements and the said portion trespassed by the saidBalaramanis described as 'B' portion in schedule of the plaint in O.S.No,402 of 1997. Accordingly, the plaintiff prayed for declaration of the plaintiff's title to the 'B' scheduled property and for recovery of possession of the same, after removal of the superstructure thereon.