SELLAKUMARASAMY Vs. P SWAMINATHAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE appellant in S.A.No.166 of 2009, namely, Sellakumarasamy, filed the suit O.S.No.88 of 1995 seeking the following relief:"to grant permanent injunction restraining the defendants, their men, heirs, assigns from in any manner trespassing into the suit property or interfering with the plaintiff's exclusive possession and enjoyment of the suit property or in any manner preventing the plaintiffs from cutting the standing trees in the suit property" THE respondents 1 to 5 in S.A.No.166 of 2009 filed the suit O.S.No.130 of 1995 seeking the following relief:"To direct the first defendant, by way of mandatory injunction, to rectify all the revenue records including filed Map with regard to suit B Schedule property R.S.BNo.107/1 of Virumandampalayam Village either excluding the portion of 0-531/2 acres of old Survey Number 386/1 that is southern portion of suit 'A' schedule property including in the same or to include the name of plaintiffs also as proprietors of the same."As such, both the suits were interrelated and interlinked, interconnected and entwined with each other, which necessitated the lower Court to correctly conduct the joint trial and pronounce the common judgment.(b) In both the suits, the defendants concerned resisted the suit. During the trial, on the side of the plaintiffs, the first plaintiff in O.S.No.130 of 1995, examined himself as P.W.1 apart from examining one Maruthachalam as P.W.2 and marked Exs.A1 to A7. THE second defendant in O.S.No.130 of 1995 examined himself as D.W.1 apart from examining Palanisamy as D.W.2 and Easwaramurthy as D.W.3 and Ex.B1 to Ex.B8 were marked. Ananthakrishnan-Advocate Commissioner, was examined as C.W.1 and Exs.C1 to C5 were also marked.(c) Ultimately the trial Court dismissed the suit O.S.No.88 of 1995 filed for injunction by Sellakumarasamy-the appellant in S.A.No.166 of 2009 and decreed the suit O.S.No.130 of 1995 filed by Swaminathan et al.(d) Being dissatisfied with the said common judgement, A.S.Nos.56 of 2004 and 56 of 2005 were filed by Sellakumaraswamy for nothing but to be dismissed by the appellate Court confirming the judgement and decree of the lower Court.

(2.) BEING unhinged and disconcerted by the said judgements and decrees, these second appeals have been filed by Sellakumarasamy on various grounds and also suggesting the following substantial questions of law:

(3.) AT this juncture, my mind is reminiscent and redolent of similar provisions as found set out in the Tamil Nadu Minor Inams (Abolition and Conversion into Ryotwari) Act, 1963 (T.N.Act.No.30 of 1963).