PATTUROSE GOUNDER Vs. MURUGESAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS Civil Miscellaneous Appeal is directed against the Judgment and order of remand dated 28.03.2002 of the learned Principal District Judge, Tiruvannamalai made in A.S.No.9 of 2000.

(2.) PATTUROSE Gounder, the deceased first appellant and one Thangavel Gounder had filed the original suit O.S.No.425 of 1996 on the file of the District Munsif cum Judicial Magistrate, Chengam for a declaration of their title to the suit property and for permanent injunction restraining the defendants from interfering with their peaceful possession and enjoyment of the suit property. The suit was filed contending that the suit property originally belonged Malaiyappa Gramani that Gopal Gounder, the father of the deceased first appellant purchased the same from the said Malaiyappa Gramani on 06.03.1926 for a sum of Rs.200/- that from the date of purchase, Gopal Gounder was in possession and enjoyment of the suit property and that he had also obtained patta in his name and was paying kist to the Government for the suit property. It was the further contention made in the plaint that PATTUROSE Gounder (deceased first appellant/first plaintiff), Thangavel Gounder (deceased second plaintiff) and Narayana Gounder were the sons of the above said Gopal Gounder that after the death of Gopal Gounder, all his three sons were enjoying the suit property jointly that Narayana Gounder died issueless whereupon PATTUROSE Gounder and Thangavel Gounder (deceased first and second plaintiffs) became entitled to the entire suit property that since Thangavel Gounder, the second plaintiff, died during the pendency of the suit without any issue, the deceased first plaintiff PATTUROSE Gounder, being the sole legal heir of Thangavel Gounder, became entitled to the entire suit property and that the defendants 1 to 5 who had no manner of right or title in respect of the suit property tried to trespass into the property pursuant to which the deceased first and second appellants/first and second plaintiffs were constrained to file the above suit for the reliefs indicated supra.

(3.) THE trial Court framed as many as 14 issues and tried the suit. P.W.1 and P.W.2 were examined and Exs.A1 to A24 were marked on the side of the plaintiffs, whereas D.W.1 was examined as the sole witness and Exs.B1 to B129 were marked on the side of the defendants. At the conclusion of trial, upon considering the evidence in the light of the arguments advanced on either side, the trial Judge (learned District Munsif cum Judicial Magistrate, Chengam) dismissed the suit on merits by its Judgment and decree dated 28.09.1999. As against the said Judgment and decree of the trial court, an appeal in A.S.No.9 of 2000 was preferred on the file of the learned Principal District Judge, Tiruvannamalai.