MINOR HABIB RAHMAN Vs. RAMU PANDARAM

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE plaintiffs in O. S. No. 77 of 1978, on the file of the District Munsiff, Devakottai, are the appellates in this second appeal. THE respondent herein is the defendant in the suit. the plaintiffs laid the suit for declaration of title and recovery of possession. THE case put forth by the plaintiffs ran as follows :

(2.) THE plaintiff's are the sons of one Abdul Majid. Abdul Majid was earlier married, to one Ummu Ammal. she was subsequently divorced. On September 15, 1942, as per the original of exhibit A-2 and on October 24, 1942, as per the original of exhibit A-3, Abdul Majid purchased the suit property benami in the name of Ummu Ammal, and Abdul Majid is the real purchaser of the suit property. After divorcing Ummu Ammal, Abdul Majid married Ameena Ammal, the mother of the plaintiffs. Possession continued with Abdul Majid and he sold the suit property to his sons, the plaintiffs under exhibit A-1 on July 19, 1987. However, Ummu Ammal, on May 24, 1977, under exhibit B-1, sold the possession of the waramdar under the plaintiffs of the suit property. In the proceedings before the Sub-Collector, Devakottai, the defendant was held to be in possession.

(3.) THAT the term "suit" would take in its connotation, a continuation of it in appeal or in second appeal is a well-accepted proposition. In Lachmeshwar v. Keshwar Lal, AIR 1941 FC 5, it has been countenanced that :