KUPPUSAMY Vs. KARUPPA PADAYACHI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Plaintiffs 1, 2 and 4 in the original suit are the appellants in the second appeal. The third plaintiff is the fifth respondent. For the sake of convenience, the parties are referred to in accordance with their ranks in the original suit and at appropriate places, their ranks in the second appeal will also be indicated.

(2.) The suit was filed for a declaration of title and injunction not to dispossess the plaintiffs (appellants and the fifth respondent) in respect of plaint A schedule property and for a bare injunction in respect of plaint B schedule property.

(3.) The plaintiffs claimed that Natesa Padayachi, the father of plaintiffs 1 to 3/husband of the fourth plaintiff was the owner of plaint A schedule property, who got it ancestrally and that after his death, the plaintiffs became entitled to the said property. So far as plaint B schedule property is concerned, it is the case of the plaintiffs that the same is a poramboke land in the occupation of the plaintiffs and they have been issued B memo based on which the penalty has been levied on them for several years. Based on the abovesaid contentions and a further contention that the defendants, who had no manner of right or title in respect of either of the suit properties, made attempts to cause disturbance to the enjoyment of the plaintiffs in respect of the suit properties, they filed the suit for the abovesaid reliefs.