RAJAGOPAL Vs. ANJALI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) 1. The Second Appeal has been preferred against the judgement and decree dated 21.3.2000 made in A.S.No,3 of 2000 on the file of Principal District Judge, Chengalpet confirming the judgment and decree dated 30.8.99 made in O.S.No.172 of 1988 on the file of the District Munsif Court, Chengalput.

(2.) THE appellant herein had filed the suit seeking relief of declaration of title and consequently, permanent injunction restraining the defendants from in any manner interfering with the peaceful possession and enjoyment of the plaintiff, in the suit schedule property. After contest, the suit was decreed as prayed for by the trial court. Aggrieved by the same, the respondents/defendants preferred an appeal, the first appellate Court, confirming the judgment and decree of the trial court, dismissed the appeal without costs. However, it was observed by the court below that the respondent / plaintiff is directed not to disturb the defendants 2 to 5 in respect of an extent of 0.12.0 hectare in Survey No,297/9B, by taking advantage of old Survey No,297/1B of the property. Aggrieved by the said direction the plaintiff in the suit has preferred the second appeal.

(3.) DURING the course of arguments, it is made clear that respondents/defendants have not disputed the appellant's right with regard to the first item of the schedule of property in S.No,297/1B and new S.No,297/1B. Learned counsel for the respondents submits that in view of Ex.B1, the respondents/defendants are entitled to 34 cents in S.No,297/1B and therefore, considering the fact that the first appellate Court while confirming the judgment and decree passed by the trial court has directed the appellant/plaintiff, not to disturb the possession and enjoyment of the defendants/respondents in respect of 0.74.05 hectare in S.No,297/1B by taking advantage of old S.No,297/1B, hence according to the learned counsel for the respondents, there is no illegality in the impugned judgment. Learned counsel for the respondents also drew the attention of this Court to the admission made by the appellant herein as P.W.1, before the trial court. As per the certified copy of the deposition, the appellant/plaintiff has admitted that old Survey Number of the suit property was 297/1B. As per Ex.A1-sale deed dated 29.3.1956, Kumarasamy Naicker, father of the appellant/plaintiff had purchased only 1.61 acre of land in S.No,297/1B from one Sonibai, and out of which, sold 34 cents to Mrs.Angammal, mother of the first respondent and grand mother of the respondents 2 to 4, hence, the petitioner cannot claim more than 1.27 acres of land, as legal heir of Kumarasamy Naicker.