P SATCHIDHANANDAM Vs. CHINNU

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE plaintiff is the appellant herein.

(2.) THE suit is filed by the plaintiff seeking declaration of possessory title and also for permanent injunction. THE plaintiff would contend that the suit property which is a promboke land was originally possessed and enjoyed by Ramasamy Goundar. THE plaintiff having originally entered into an agreement to purchase the possessory right of the said Ramasamy Goundar, clinched the sale transaction with him in the name of the plaintiff's brother's wife by name Kanagavalli Ammal. Alleging that the defendants are making an attempt to encroach upon the suit property, the plaintiff filed a suit for the aforesaid reliefs.

(3.) WHILE admitting the second appeal, the following substantial questions of law were framed for determination:-1. Whether the lower Appellate Court erred in law in dismissing the suit in to instead of granting a lesser relief to the plaintiff in respect of 1.43 acres out of 2.43 acres. 2. Whether the lower Appellate Court is correct in not granting the relief to the plaintiff, on the ground that the Government of Tamil Nadu was not made a party, as the suit property is a poromboke land.