Madras High Court
Rukmani Ammal vs Karuppa Gounder on 22 March, 2012
Author: M.Venugopal
Bench: M.Venugopal
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS DATED : 22.03.2012 CORAM THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE M.VENUGOPAL S.A.No.1492 of 2001 Rukmani Ammal ... Appellant/Respondent/Plaintiff Vs. 1.Karuppa Gounder 2.Govindhan 3.Manicka Gounder 4.Subramaniyam 5.Elumalai Gounder ... Respondents/Appellants/Defendants Appeal filed under Section 100 of the Civil Procedure Code against the Judgment and Decree dated 31.05.2001 in A.S.No.121 of 2000 passed by the Learned Additional District Judge, Tiruvannamalai, in reversing the Judgment and Decree dated 27.06.2000 in O.S.No.216 of 1996 passed by the Learned District Munsif-cum-Judicial Magistrate, Chengam. For Appellant : Mr.V.Raghavachari For Respondents : Mr.A.Anbarasu for M/s.T.R.Rajaraman J U D G M E N T
The Appellant/Plaintiff has projected this instant Second Appeal as against the Judgment and Decree dated 31.05.2001 in A.S.No.121 of 2000 passed by the Learned Additional District Judge, Tiruvannamalai, in reversing the Judgment and Decree dated 27.06.2000 in O.S.No.216 of 1996 passed by the Learned District Munsif-cum-Judicial Magistrate, Chengam.
2.The First Appellate Court viz., the Learned Additional District Judge, Tiruvannamalai, while passing the Judgment in A.S.No.121 of 2000 (filed by the Respondents/Defendants as Appellants) on 31.05.2001, has inter alia held that 'The Respondent/Plaintiff has failed to establish her case and claim to the hilt and as such, not been in agreement with the findings of the trial Court in holding that the oral sale is a true one and that the Respondent/Plaintiff has proved her prescribed title and enjoyment by Adverse Possession and consequently, allowed the Appeal, leaving the parties to bear their own costs, thereby, setting aside the Judgment and Decree passed by the trial Court in the main suit.'
3.Before the trial Court, in the main suit, 1 to 5 Issues have been framed for determination. On behalf of the Plaintiff, Witnesses PW1 to PW4 have been examined and Ex.A.1 to Ex.A.21 have been marked. On the side of the Defendants, Witness DW1 has been examined and Ex.B.1 to Ex.B.21 have been marked.
4.The trial Court, on an appreciation of entire oral and documentary evidence available on record, has come to a consequent conclusion that 'the Appellant/Plaintiff, 12 years before filing of the suit, with the knowledge of the Respondents/Defendants, has been in enjoyment of the suit property and as such, acquired the right of Adverse Possession and viewed in that perspective, granted the relief of declaration in respect of suit property in favour of the Appellant/ Plaintiff and also, granted the relief of permanent injunction and passed a Decree without costs to the effect.'
5.At the time of admission of the Second Appeal, this Court has formulated the following Substantial Questions of Law for determination.
1.Whether the Lower Appellate Court has not erred in dismissing the suit when the Plaintiff had proved the discharge of mortgage under Ex.A.1 and oral sale subsequently to it?
2.Whether the Lower Appellate Court is right in disbelieving the evidence of PWs.2 to 4 when their evidence is acceptable and trustworthy?
3.Whether the Lower Appellate Court is right in dismissing the sale made in favour of the Appellant and should it not have seen that the continuous possession and enjoyment after the discharge of the mortgage would be a relevant factor to reckon?
4.Whether the Lower Appellate Court ought not to have held that by long possession and enjoyment the Appellant had prescribed title to the suit property?
6.The Contentions, Discussions and Findings on Substantial Questions of Law No.1 to 4:
According to the Learned Counsel for the Appellant/Plaintiff, the First Appellate Court should have seen that the Mortgage, as per Ex.A.1 dated 09.02.1960, has been discharged by the Appellant/ Plaintiff and the same has been duly registered.
7.The Learned Counsel for the Appellant/Plaintiff urges before this Court that the Appellant/ Plaintiff in fact has proved the discharge of mortgage as per Ex.A.1 Mortgage Deed dated 09.02.1960, by producing the original Mortgage Deed and also, by examining the attesting witnesses as well as the scribe.
8.Advancing his arguments, the Learned Counsel for the Appellant/Plaintiff submits that the evidence of PW2 to PW4 are cogent and enough to prove that subsequent to the discharge of mortgage, the Appellant/Plaintiff has been put into possession and continued to be in uninterrupted possession of the property as per Ex.A.2 to Ex.A.11. But, these aspects have not been adverted to by the First Appellate Court in proper and real perspective.
9.It is the plea of the Appellant/Plaintiff that she has discharged the burden of proof by examining herself as a witness and by producing Ex.A.1 Mortgage Deed, it is established that the money has been paid and also, the attesting witness has been examined to prove the factum of oral sale and handing over of possession and indeed, there is no reliable evidence on the side of the Respondents/ Defendants to prove their case.
10.The Learned Counsel for the Appellant/Plaintiff contends that because of the close relationship of the Appellant/Plaintiff with the Respondents/Defendants, her son has been married to the 4th Respondent/4th Defendant's daughter and therefore, the oral sale has been entered into and acted upon and the same has not been registered because of the close relationship and after the death of the Appellant/Plaintiff's son, the dispute has arisen.
11.The Learned Counsel for the Appellant/Plaintiff strenuously contends that the Appellant/ Plaintiff has produced the records to prove the possession and enjoyment from the year 1965-1986 and the long and continuous possession of the Appellant/Plaintiff in this regard proves her prescriptive right over the property.
12.Lastly, it is the submission of the Learned Counsel for the Appellant/Plaintiff that the Respondents/Defendants subsequent to the oral sale in favour of the Appellant/Plaintiff has moved out of Village and settled in Reddiyarpalayam, which is 10 Kms away from the Edathanur Village and also that, no one has been known from the village to prove possession and also, one Alagu, who has said to be the agent of the Defendant and cultivating the suit property, has also not been examined.
13.In response, the Learned Counsel for the Respondents/ Defendants submits that the First Appellate Court in the First Appeal in A.S.No.121 of 2000 filed by the Respondents/Defendants as Appellants, has rightly come to the conclusion that the Appellant/Plaintiff has failed to prove and establish her case to the hilt and as such, taken a different view than that of the trial Court, allowed the Appeal, by setting aside the Judgment and Decree passed by the trial Court in the main suit, which requires no interference in the hands of this Court sitting in Second Appeal.
14.In the Plaint, the Respondent/Plaintiff has averred that the suit property originally belonged to the 1st Respondent/1st Defendant's grandfather Karuppa Gounder and after his demise, his son Thiruvenkadathan has inherited the same and has been in enjoyment of the suit property and 1 to 3 Defendants and the deceased Ramasamy Gounder are the sons of Thiruvenkadathan. The 4th defendant is the son of Ramasamy Gounder. The 5th Defendant is the son of the 1st Defendant.
15.Thiruvenkadathan has created a Mortgage (Bogiyam) in respect of the suit property on 09.02.1960 in favour of Edathanur Kuppa Gounder's wife Kanniyammal and obtained a sum of Rs.300/- and that loan of Rs.300/- has remained undischarged. Thiruvenkadathan with his sons has been residing permanently at Reddiyapalayam. The suit property is the adjacent land situated near the land of the Plaintiff at Edathanur Village where he resides. The distance between the Reddiyapalayam and Edathanur Village is 10 miles. Till 1965, the mortgage has remained undischarged. After the mortgage, within 5 or 6 years, Thiruvenkadathan has expired. After his demise, his heirs and the Defendants have not been remained unitedly and there has been quarrels between them. On 01.05.1968, the 1st Defendant and his brothers have approached the Plaintiff and requested for keeping the sale of suit property for Rs.300/-, to which course the Respondent/Plaintiff has agreed and has kept the money. Since the suit property has been mortgaged in favour of Kanniyammal, the Appellant/Plaintiff has approached the said Kanniyammal by paying Rs.300/- and has discharged the Mortgage Deed. The Appellant/ Plaintiff is a poor and is not knowing to write and also not knowing the worldly affairs. The Respondents/Defendants on that day itself has sold the suit property by means of oral sale and they informed that there is no need to write a document and allowed it to remain as an oral sale and they permitted the Appellant/Plaintiff to discharge the Mortgage Deed with her and they have gone. From that day onwards, the Plaintiff has been taken possession of the suit property and without any disturbance and interference by any one and in enjoyment of the suit property by raising crops and also paid the kist and taxes etc. The Respondents/Defendants without any quarrel has gone to Reddiyapalayam. Since the Plaintiff has been in enjoyment of the suit property continuously, based on oral sale, without anybody's disturbance or interference, she has become the full owner of the suit property and also, she has acquired the right of Adverse Possession in the suit property. Patta in the name of Thiruvenkadathan has been handed over to the Plaintiff and she is in possession of the same.
16.The cultivation is in the name of the Appellant/Plaintiff. The Respondents/Defendants have not enjoyed the suit property for well over 10 years and they have no rights and now because of enmity, they endeavoured to trespass into the suit property and also, make an attempt to sell the suit property to the different persons. Last week, the Respondents/Defendants and their men have made the attempt to trespass into the suit property which has been prevented by means of Panchayat on 01.04.1986. Therefore, the Plaintiff has filed the suit praying for the relief of declaring a right absolutely in respect of the suit property and for the relief of consequent injunction restraining the Respondents/Defendant, their men, etc. from interfering with the peaceful possession and enjoyment of the suit property by the Appellant/Plaintiff.
17.In the written statement filed by the 1st Respondent/1st Defendant (adopted by 2 to 5 Defendants), it is averred that it is true that the suit property belonged to Thiruvenkadathan absolutely. Also, it is true that Thiruvenkadathan has created a mortgage for Rs.300/- in favour of Kuppa Gounder's wife Kanniyammal of Edathanur Village by means of Bogiyam. Thiruvenkadathan till his death, with his family and sons have lived in the suit property at Edathanur Village. The Respondents/Defendants have not sold the suit property by means of oral sale to the Plaintiff at any point of time. The Appellant/Plaintiff has not paid Rs.300/- to Kanniyammal to discharge the Mortgage Deed. The 1st Defendant on 01.05.1968, has paid the amount of Rs.300/- mentioned in mortgage document in the presence of witnesses and has redeemed the mortgage and from that date onwards, the 1st Defendant and his brothers are in enjoyment of the suit properties.
18.After the demise of Thiruvenkadathan, till few years ago 1 to 3 Defendants and 4th Defendant's father have resided at Edathanur Village and also even after the discharge of the mortgage, she has been in enjoyment of the suit property after inherited the same. After the discharge of mortgage, few years later, the Respondents/ Defendants have shifted to Reddiyapalayam for residing there and at the time of living in the village, the Defendants in order to protect their family hereditary property have talked with one Ayyam Perumal, Son of Arava Gounder, Edathanur Village, to look after the suit property and also, they agreed to share 1/4th of the produce in cultivation and in this way, they have enjoyed the suit property profits and continued to enjoy the same likewise.
19.It has been decided to give in marriage of the 4th Defendant's daughter and the Appellant/Plaintiff's owner Jayaraman and because of the close relationship between the parties, the Appellant/Plaintiff used to come to the residence of the 1st Defendant at Reddiyapalayam frequently and continuously she has stayed for some days and two years before, a family dispute has arisen between the Appellant/ Plaintiff and the Respondents/Defendants and even after the said trouble on numerous occasions, the Appellant/Plaintiff has come to the 1st Defendant's house and has stayed there. One year before, the discharge of Mortgage Deed, some tax receipts, patta passbook and other records has disappeared from the 1st Respondent's house and inspite of search, the same could not be traced out and because of the misplacement of the Mortgage Deed, he remained quiet. After filing of the suit by the Appellant/Plaintiff, the Defendants have come to know that the Appellant/Plaintiff has conspired and taken the original Mortgage Deed, Tax Receipts, Patta Passbook from the house of the 1st Defendant, who has paid the money to Kanniyammal on redeeming the mortgage and only after the receipt of the suit summons and notice, the Defendants have come to know these facts and at any point of time, the Plaintiff has not enjoyed the suit property. Presently, the Respondents/Defendants are in enjoyment of the suit property. There is no cause of action for the Appellant/Plaintiff to file a suit.
20.The evidence of PW1 (Appellant/Plaintiff) is that the suit property originally belongs to the grandfather of the 1st Defendant Karuppa Gounder and after his death, his son Thiruvenkadathan has acquired the property by inheritance and has been in enjoyment and 1 to 3 Defendants and Ramasamy Gounder are the sons of Thiruvenkadathan and 4th Defendant is the son of the deceased Ramasamy and 5th Defendant is the 1st Defendant Karuppa Gounder's son and on 09.02.1960, Thiruvenkadathan has mortgaged the property to Kanniyammal, Wife of Kuppa Gounder of Edathanur Village for a sum of Rs.300/- and that the mortgage has not been discharged and Thiruvenkadathan and his sons have settled their family at Reddiyapalayam and the suit land is adjacent to her land. PW1 has also deposed that the Mortgage loan has remained undischarged and after creating the mortgage, 5 or 6 years later, Thiruvenkadathan has expired and after his death, there is no unity and frequent quarrels between his heirs and her and the Defendants have asked her to keep the property for a sale of Rs.300/- on 01.05.1968 and she has kept the property by means of sale on 01.05.1968 and further, she has paid a sum of Rs.300/- to Kanniyammal and discharged the mortgage loan and the document and she has made an endorsement after discharge of the mortgage and she is not able to write and the Defendants have informed her that there is no need to write a document and from 01.05.1968, she has been in possession of the suit property and has been in enjoyment of the same by paying kist and as such, the suit property is a separate property and she has been doing the cultivation and the factum of taking possession of the suit property, is very well known to the Defendants and the Village common public.
21.PW1 proceeds to state in her evidence that from 01.05.1968 till date, she has been in enjoyment of the suit property and Ex.A.12 to Ex.A.20 are the Land Tax receipts and other receipts and Ex.A.21 is the Patta issued in her favour and that the Respondents/Defendants have not enjoyed the suit property for well over 12 years.
22.Added further, it is the evidence of PW1 that the suit property is the ancestral property of the Respondents/Defendants and she cannot state about the Survey Number and the extent of the suit property and she does not know about the patta number of the suit property and the Defendants have orally informed her to keep the suit property and she does not know about the date on which they informed her about it and in Ex.A.1 Mortgage Deed, there are no recitals to the effect that Kanniyammal has paid the money and discharged the mortgage and at the time of discharge, witnesses Ramalinga Gounder, Gopal Gounder and Balakrishnan and two other persons next village have been present. But, she does not know the names of two persons and the discharge of mortgage has not been registered.
23.PW2 in his evidence has deposed that Thiruvenkadathan has mortgaged the suit property 30 years ago in favour of Kanniyammal and after the mortgage, 2 or 3 years later, he has gone to Reddiyapalayam to reside there along with the Defendants and Thiruvenkadathan has expired at Reddiyapalayam and that he has not redeemed the mortgage and that the Defendants have orally sold the property and that the suit property has been purchased by the Plaintiff orally from the Defendants and nearly 30, 31 years before, Rukmani (Appellant/Plaintiff in Second Appeal) has purchased the suit property through oral sale and from that time onwards, the suit property has been in her possession and enjoyment.
24.PW2 in his evidence has also deposed that discharge of mortgage has not been registered and in the Village itself the discharge has been written and separately, the document has been written.
25.PW3 in his evidence has deposed that from the year 1964, the Appellant/Plaintiff has been in enjoyment of the suit property and Rukmani has redeemed the mortgage from Kanniyammal and he knows about the discharge of mortgage by the Plaintiff from Kanniyammal and at the time of discharge, he has been present and after coming to the Village, 3 or 4 years later, Kanniyammal's mortgage has been discharged. For discharging the mortgage, the money has been paid by the Plaintiff and the discharge details for the mortgage has been written by him and also, he signed in the said mortgage and in the Ex.A.1 Mortgage Deed, his signature is found and Kanniyammal also signed in Ex.A.1 and the Plaintiff has purchased the suit property on oral sale and has been in possession and enjoyment of the suit property.
26.PW4 in his evidence has deposed that he has been in enjoyment of his land for the past 35 years and the next land has been in enjoyment of the Plaintiff for the past 30 years and the Appellant/Plaintiff is paying the tax and at any point of time, the Defendants have not been in enjoyment of the suit property and he knows personally that the suit property has been in enjoyment of the Appellant/Plaintiff.
27.DW1 (2nd Defendant) in his evidence has deposed that the suit property belongs to his grandfather Karuppa Gounder and his father is the only son to his grandfather and the suit property is an ancestral one and 30 years have elapsed, from the date of death of Karuppa Gounder and after the death of his grandfather Karuppa Gounder, he along with his father and others have been in enjoyment of the suit property and 20 years have elapsed from the date of death of his father, he resided at Edathanur Village and till his lifetime, he has been paying kist and the UDR Patta has been changed in his father's name and after his grandfather's death, patta has been changed in his father's name in respect of Fasli No.1395. Ex.B.2 to Ex.B.14 are receipts issued for Fasli Nos.1382 to 1394 and he along with his father have paid kist and Ex.B.10 to Ex.B.19 are the receipts and the 1st Defendant is the elderly person in the family and after discharge of mortgage, they have been in enjoyment of the suit property.
28.DW1 in his evidence has also deposed that after coming to the Court, he has come to know that Mortgage Deed has been misplaced and that the Plaintiff (Appellant in Second Appeal) has not enjoyed the suit property at any point of time and from the year 1990 onwards, he has been informed that patta will be changed and that he issued a notice through Lawyer to the Tahsildar, which is Ex.B.20 and Ex.B.21 is the Acknowledgment Card.
29.Continuing further, DW1 has also deposed that all the Defendants are living as one family and he does not know to write and at the time of discharging the mortgage by Kanniyammal, he has gone over there and Ramalingam, Gopal, Pandurangan and Munusamy have signed in the document at the time of discharging the Mortgage Deed and now, they are residing separately and it is not correct to state that they have given the suit property through oral sale and he does not know about the pattas standing in the name of the Plaintiff (Appellant in Second Appeal) presently.
30.From a perusal of Ex.A.1 Mortgage Deed, dated 09.02.1960, on the reverse of the 2nd page, it is clear that the payment of Rs.300/- has been made towards Mortgage Deed in the name of the 1st Respondent/1st Defendant. Curiously, there is no signature found below the tamil recitals written in blue ink. In the second word after the first word 1968 year in the month portion, it is originally written as 'April' and later on, it has been overwritten as 'May'. In fact, there appears to be the overwriting of the month 'April' into 'May' and therefore, in the considered opinion of this Court, there is smudging of the month. Below the first recitals made in tamil in blue ink, there are recitals in different ink in tamil dated 09.02.1960, which refers to the payment of Rs.300/- in respect of the mortgage document and further, it has been mentioned as 'Kanniyammal' and she has affixed her LTI to get into the possession of the property and to enjoy the same and from which person the amount of Rs.300/- has been received by Kanniyammal has not been made mention of in the recitals, dated 09.02.1960. Nearly, five individuals have signed as attesting witnesses. The certified copies of Adangal have not been produced before the trial Court in respect of the period from 1965 to 1986 on the side of the Appellant/Plaintiff. The kist receipts Ex.A.2 to Ex.A.11 are of little aid to the Appellant/Plaintiff. Inasmuch as the same will not directly prove the factum of possession and enjoyment. Ex.A.12 to Ex.A.20 Kist Receipts are all after filing of the suit and hence, there of little consequences, in the considered opinion of this Court.
31.The Registration Act, 1908, makes registration an optional one in regard to all immovable property which are less than the value of Rs.100/-. A sale of intangible immovable property can only be made by a registered instrument, whatever the value of the said property may be. As a matter of fact, Section 54 of the Transfer of Property Act, 1882, comprehends the value of the property, as distinguished from the purported consideration of alienation and as such, even if the property worth more than Rs.100/- is transferred for a consideration of less than Rs.100/-, it cannot be done without a registered document as per decision Davendra Singh v. State of Rajasthan, AIR 2002 Raj 66.
32.Though the oral evidence of PW3 namely the scribe (who has written the second endorsement dated 09.02.1960 in Tamil on the reverse side of the Ex.A.1 Mortgage Deed) refers to the factum of the oral sale pleaded by the Appellant/Plaintiff, the extent of suit property is 1.75 acres in S.F.No.120/12 in Edathanur Village, Chengam Taluk, and the value of the property is certainly more than Rs.100/- and as such, as per Section 54 of the Transfer of Property Act and as per Section 17(i)(b) of the Registration Act, the same has to be registered and since the sale has not been registered, the oral sale pleaded by the Appellant/Plaintiff is not accepted by this Court.
33.PW1 in her evidence has deposed (in cross examination) that the mortgagee Kanniyammal presently is not there and further, she has deposed that one Ramalinga Gounder and Gopal are not died namely, the two attesters. But, PW3 (Karnam) has confirmed the death of the aforesaid two persons during his cross examination, but, as regards the other three attesting witnesses, there is silence.
34.PW1 in her evidence has deposed and also averred in the Plaint that the registration in respect of the sale of the property has not been done so as to avoid Stamp Duty expenses. However, PW3 has stated in his evidence that on behalf of the Appellant/Plaintiff's close relationship between the parties registration has been given up.
35.Chitta Extract namely Ex.B.1 for Fasli No.1395, the extracts of Adangal for Fasli Nos.1382 to 1394 Ex.B.2 to Ex.B.14 do stand in the name of Thiruvenkadathan (since deceased) in respect of the suit land which clear gut the case of the Appellant/Plaintiff, as opined by this Court. The Appellant/Plaintiff is duty bound to prove before this Court as to how in what manner she has acquired the right in the suit property. In the instant case on hand, the Respondents/Defendants are having better title than that of the Appellant/Plaintiff. In law, an individual claiming possessory title cannot obtain an order of injunction against the true owner or as against an individual possessing better title.
36.In law, there is no Adverse Possession by one co-owner as against other co-owners until there is exclusion. As a matter of fact, the possession of one co-owner becomes adverse to another co-owner from the time when there is an ouster, viz., after there is an assertion of a hostile title by one co-owner against the other and to the knowledge of the latter as per decision Corea v. Appuhami (1912) AC Page 230.
37.Also, the law is a settled one to the effect that there can be no Adverse Possession by one co-owner, unless there has been a denial of title and an ouster to the knowledge of the other as per decision Subah Lal v. Fateh Mohamad 54 All 628; AIR 1932 All 393.
38.Added further, the Honourable Supreme Court in Mohammad Baqar v. Naim-un-nissa, AIR 1956 SC 548, has observed that 'the possession of one co-owner cannot be adverse to the other co-owners, unless there is denial of the latter's right to their knowledge by the person in possession, and exclusion and ouster thereto for the statutory period.'
39.In Midnapur Zamindary v. Naresh Narayan 51 IA 293, it is held that 'as possession by one co-owner is regarded as possession on behalf of all the co-owners, it follows that an exclusive use of lands held in common by a co-owner does not amount to an ouster of the other co-owners.'
40.That apart, in law, the possession of one co-owner does not necessarily imply hostility, as would the possession of an alien. Indeed, the law will never construe a possession as tortious one, unless from necessity. Instead, it will consider every possession lawful, the beginning and continuance of which is not proved to be wrongful. The principle is that 'every man shall be presumed to act in obedience to his duty, until the contrary appears.'
41.At this stage, this Court pertinently points out that as per Articles 64 and 65 of the Indian Limitation Act, long possession is not necessarily an adverse possession. In R.N.Dawar v. Ganga Sharan Dhama, AIR 1993 Del 19, it is held that 'the mere fact that 'he was in uninterrupted possession for several years and in that way he acquired absolute right and title was not enough to raise plea of adverse possession therefor.'
42.At this stage, this Court worth recalls the decision Jahurul Islam v. Abdul Kalam, AIR 1991 Cal 132, it is held that 'mere possession even of a trespasser would not constitute adverse possession unless accompanied by open assertion of hostile title.' Further, this Court aptly points out that the requirement of an adverse possession is that the possession must be open and without any endeavour of concealment. A claimant of title to property through adverse possession must plead and prove how and when the Adverse Possession has commenced, what was its nature and whether the facts of this adverse possession were known to the real owner as per decision Rosily Mathew v. Joseph, AIR 1987 Ker 42.
43.As far as the present case is concerned, the Appellant/Plaintiff has not proved her case to the satisfaction of this Court and it is held by this Court that the oral sale pleaded by the Appellant/Plaintiff is not a true one and as such, it cannot be said that the Appellant/Plaintiff has prescribed the title and enjoyment by means of Adverse Possession in respect of the suit property and moreover, in between close relationship, the Court has to look into the plea of Adverse Possession with care and caution and viewed in that perspective, this Court answers the Substantial Questions of Law Nos.1 to 4 against the Appellant/Plaintiff.
In the result, the Second Appeal is dismissed leaving the parties to bear their own costs. Consequently, the Judgment and Decree of the First Appellate Court dated 31.05.2001 in A.S.No.121 of 2000 are confirmed by this Court for the reasons assigned in this Appeal.
22.03.2012
Index : Yes/No
Internet : Yes/No
mps
To
1.The Additional District Judge, Tiruvannamalai.
2.The District Munsif-cum-Judicial Magistrate, Chengam.
M.VENUGOPAL.J,
mps
Pre-delivery Judgment in
S.A.No.1492 of 2001
22.03.2012