BALARAMAPILLAI Vs. RAJAGOPAL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THESE two Second Appeals have been filed by the Plaintiff, animadverting upon the common judgement and decrees dated 05.09.2006 passed by the learned Subordinate Judge, Ami, Tiruvannamalai in A.S. No. 16 of 2006 and A.S. No. 17 of 2006, confirming the common judgement and decrees dated 30.11.2005 passed by the learned District Munsif, Ami, Tiravannamalai District in O.S. No. 218 of 1996 and O.S. No. 446 of 1998. For convenience sake, the parties are referred to here under according to their litigative status before the Trial Court. Avoiding discursive discussion, I would like to pithily and precisely, tersely and briefly set out the germane facts as under:

(2.) HEARD the learned Counsel appearing for the Plaintiff/Appellant and the learned Counsel appearing for the Defendant/Respondent.

(3.) BY way of torpedoing and pulverising the arguments of the learned Counsel for the Plaintiff/Appellant, the learned Counsel for the Defendant/ Respondent advanced his argument, the pith and marrow, the long and short of it would be to the effect that the onus of proof is on the Plaintiff to prove his case; but, he has not chosen to do so; whereas the Defendant established before the Court that the previous said Survey No. 137/5 was subdivided during re -survey and the Survey No. 176/3A and 176/3B were shown in Defendant's name; the Plaintiff even though claims 12 ares (30 cents) of land in Re -survey No. 176/3A as though under the encroachment of the Defendant, yet the fact remains that the patta relating to Re -survey No. 176/3A stands in the name of the Defendant only and as such, the Defendant proved that he has got right of ownership over Survey No. 176/3A and that no interference with the judgment of both the Courts below are required.