KARUPPAYAMMAL Vs. S RAMAALINGAM PILLAI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS second appeal is directed against the judgment of the learned District Judge, Dindigul in A.S.No.64 of 1985, confirming the judgment of the learned District Munsif, Palani, in O.S. No. 547 of 1981. Defendants 1 and 2 in the suit are the appellants in the above second appeal.

(2.) AS the decision in the second appeal revolves around the competence of the court to pass a decree in favour of a defendant as contemplated under Order 8, Rule 6, 6-A to 6-G, C.P.C., it is unnecessary to refer to the pleadings of the parties or the findings of the courts below in detail.

(3.) THE facts as stated above would disclose that in a suit for recovery of possession by the plaintiff against defendants 1 and 2, the third defendant gets himself impleaded and seeks for a decree for possession for himself. THE courts below held that while the plaintiffs had not established either title or possession and that the third defendant was entitled to the property consequently decree for possession is granted in favour of the third defendant as against defendants 1 and 2 who are found to be in possession.