Chockalingam v. Namadev

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS RESERVED ON: 23.11.2016 PRONOUNCED ON: 29.11.2016 CORAM THE HON'BLE DR.JUSTICE G.JAYACHANDRAN Second Appeal No.502 of 1995 Chockalingam .. Appellant/Plaintiff v 1.Namadev (died) 2.Anjalai 3.Mangalakshmi 4.Vaidhyanathan 5.Dhanalakshmi 6.Marimuthu 7.Sundari ..Respondents/D1 and LRs of D1 (R3 to R7 are brought on record as LRs of the deceased R1 vide order of Court dated 05.09.2003 made in CMP.No.10604/95)

Prayer:- This Second Appeal has been filed under Section 100 of C.P.C., against the finding given in the judgment dated 22.08.1994 in A.S.No.292 of 1993 on the file of the District Judge, of South Arcot Vallalar Cuddalore reversing the judgment and decree dt 20.09.1993 in O.S.No.636 of 1990 on the file of the Additional District Munsif, Cuddalore.

For Appellant : Mr.R.Sunil Kumar For R.1 : Died For R.2 : Ms.P.V.Rajeswari For RR.3,5 & 7 : No Appearance For RR4 & 6 : Dismissed on 13.07.2009 JUDGMENT

The plaintiff is the appellant before this Court. The suit was filed for declaration to declare the plaintiff's title to the plaint "A" schedule property and recovery of possession of the suit properties from the defendants or in alternate, for partition and separate possession of the plaintiffs 1/3 rd share in “B” schedule property and for future mesne profits. The trial Court after examining the parties and analyzing 7 exhibits on behalf of the plaintiff and 31 exhibits on behalf of the defendants held that the plaintiff is entilted for the alternate relief seeking 1/3^rd share in the “B” schedule property.

https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/

2.However, on appeal, the First Appellate Court reversed the finding of the trial Court holding that the defendants were allowed to be in possession for over and above the statutory period therefore, the defendants have prescribed the title to the suit properties by way of adverse possession. Aggrieved by this, the present Second Appeal has been preferred by the plaintiff.