K.NARAYANAN Vs. RAJAPUNNISSA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This second appeal arises from the judgement made in Cross Appeal No.25 of 2009 in A.S.No.445 of 2008 by the learned XVIII Additional Judge, City Civil Court, Chennai. The 2nd defendant in the suit and cross objector in the appeal suit is the appellant herein. The 1st respondent herein is the plaintiff and the 2nd respondent is the 1st defendant in the suit. The suit was filed for declaration of plaintiff's title in respect of the suit schedule property and for injunction restraining the defendants from interfering with the possession of the suit property by the plaintiff. The learned XIV Assistant Judge, by a judgement and decree dated 29.01.2008, partly decreed the suit in respect of declaration of title in favour of the plaintiff, however, dismissed the suit in respect of permanent injunction. Aggrieved by the dismissal part of the suit in respect of permanent injunction, the plaintiff had filed an appeal in A.S.No.445 of 2008 and in the Appeal Suit, the 2nd defendant filed a cross appeal in Cross Appeal No.25 of 2009 as against the decree for declaration of title in favour of plaintiff. It appears that pending appeal in Appeal and Cross Appeal, the 2nd defendant had filed a separate appeal in A.S.No.165 of 2010. It could also be seen that in pending A.S.No.445 of 2008, the plaintiff filed an application in C.M.P.No.8 of 2009 seeking to amend the prayer in the plaint, to include the relief of recovery of possession which came to be dismissed by the first appellate court on 10.01.2011. However, on a revision filed by the plaintiff in CRP (PD) No.3759 of 2011, this court set aside the order of the first appellate court and allowed the amendment of plaint to include the relief of recovery of possession of the property in question. Thereafter, by judgement and decree dated 20.02.2015, the learned XVIII Additional Judge, City Civil Court, Chennai, has dismissed the appeals filed by the plaintiff and the 2nd defendant respectively and also the cross appeal filed by the 2nd defendant. Aggrieved by the same, the cross objector/2nd defendant is before this court with this second appeal.

(2.) It is pertinent to note that in the mean time, the second appeal filed by the plaintiff in S.A.No.60 of 2016, as against the dismissal of his appeal in respect of recovery of possession, was allowed by this court on 26.07.2018 and thereby the judgement and decree of the first appellate court was set aside and this court had granted a decree for recovery of possession, in addition to the decree of declaration of title granted granted by the courts below.

(3.) For the sake of convenience, the parties in this judgement will hereinafter be referred to as per their array before the trial court.