VEERASWAMY MUDALI Vs. PALANIAPPAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The suit from which this second appeal arises was brought in the District Munsif's Court of Karur, by the plaintiff to recover possession of certain lands in the possession of tenants. He had previously brought two suits in respect of the same property. The first suit had been dismissed for want of a notice to quit, the second suit had been dismissed for failure to give a proper notice to quit. It is admitted that in the second suit the Court found that the defendants had no per present suit, the plaintiff relied on favour and an issue was framed on that contention; but both the lower Court have paid very little attention to this question and seem hardly to have dealt with it; but the plaintiff is undoubtedly entitled to argue this question.

(2.) The two principal findings of the Lower Appellate Court were that the plaintiff had not proved that kudivram in him, and secondly, that even if he had so proved it, he had not proved that he had a right to evict. I fail to understand why, in view of the finding of the Lower Appellate Court as to the kudivaram, the District Judge did not order the plaint to be returned for presentation to a Revenue Court.

(3.) The question of res judicata has been argued at great length by Mr. Govindaraghava Aiyar for the plaintiff, but we eventually intimated our intention not to deal with this matter at the present stage. So I will leave that question for future decision, if necessary.