GNANAPRAKASAM Vs. SMITHA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) 1. In both the above second appeals, plaintiff in the respective suits are the appellants. O.S.No.251 of 1996 was filed by the appellant in S.A.No.1772 of 1998. O.S.No.227 of 1996 was filed by the appellant in S.A.No.136 of 1999. Both the suits were filed in District Munsif's Court, Padmanabhapuram.

(2.) MATERIAL averments of the case may be summarised thus:Under Exs.A-1 to A-4, plaintiff, in O.S.No.251 of 1996 purchased the plaint schedule property having an extent of 8 acres and 80 cents in Survey Nos.113/2 and 115/2 of Thirparappu Village, Kalkulam Taluk. Those documents were executed by none other than the defendants in that suit. All these properties originally belonged to one George and Soosammal George, and they sold the property to one Sankaran, first defendant in that suit. Sankaran executed Exs.A-1 to A-4 in favour of plaintiffs who claim to be in possession of the plaint schedule property. The reason for filing the suit was, there is no separating boundary between the property purchased by them and the remaining property retained by their vendor. They wanted fixation of boundary and also for a permanent injunction restraining the defendants from interfering with their possession and enjoyment of the suit property.

(3.) THE suit filed by defendants as O.S.No.227 of 1996 was dismissed on the ground that they have not adduced any evidence, either oral or documentary, and the cause of action has not been proved.