RAMASAMY Vs. RAMACHANDRAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE appellant is respondent in A.S.No.42/2001 and 40/2001 on the file of the Additional Subordinate Judge, Mayiladuthurai. Both the appeals arose from the judgments passed in O.S.No.98/98 and 217/98 on the file of the District Munsif Court, Sirkali. THE Appellant is defendant in O.S.No.62 of 2001 and plaintiff in O.S.No.98/98. THE respondent is plaintiff in O.S.No.62/01 and he is defendant in O.S.No.98/98.

(2.) IN O.S.No.217/1998, reliefs of recovery of possession and further removal of roofed superstructure and also for mesne profits have been prayed for. While O.S.No.98/98 was filed for permanent injunction. The learned District Munsif passed a common judgment in favour of this appellant and the respondent preferred two appeals in A.S.No.40/2001 and 42/2001 on the file of the learned Additional Subordinate Judge, Mayiladuthurai.

(3.) IT is also observed by the Appellate court that if 2- cents is located in Survey No.280/2, there is a possibility of granting relief to the appellant (respondent herein) and that in the interest of justice, the matter has to be remitted back to the Trial court for a fresh trial as to the points which would be placed before the court by the Commissioner's report. The conclusive portion of the judgment of the Appellate Court is as follows:-" vdnt ePjpapd eyd FwpjJ czikjjdikiaf fhQqk bghUlLk nkyKiwaPllhsh juggpy Kddplggll nkyKiwaPL 40/2001y jhffy braaggll t.tp.62/2001 mDkjpggjwF Vwg[ila kwWk nghJkhd fhuzk ,Uggjhfnt bjdgLfpwJ/ mjd bjhlhrrpahf tHffwp"h Mizah epakdk braa[gglL rhntah cjtpa[ld jhth ,ljijg ghhitaplL. mwpfif kwWk tiuglk Mfpatwiw jhffy braa[k glrjjpy mJ bjhlhghf ,UjuggpdUfFk thabkhHp kwWk TLjy Mtz rhlrpa'fis Kd itff thagg[ mspjJ g[jpa jPhgg[ tH'fpl ntzoaJ mtrpakhfpwJ/ nkwbrhdd fhuz'fspd moggilapy ,knkyKiwaPLfs mDkjpffgglL. fPHik ePjpkdwjjpd jPhgg[k. jPhgghida[k ujJ braagglL. kPzLk tprhuizffhf mry tHfFfis fPHik ePjpkdwjjpwF kPllDgg[if braaj jPhkhdpffggLfpwJ/".