- (1.) The above appeal was filed by the plaintiffs against the final judgment and order dated 28-7-1998 passed by the High Court of Judicature at Madras in S.A.No. 2147 of 1985 allowing the same and reversing the judgment dated 14-9-1984 passed by the learned Subordinate Judge, Tiruvallur in A.S. No. 21 of 1983 and restoring the judgment dated 21-1-1981 passed by the learned District Munsif, Poonamallee in O.S. No. 1459 of 1973.
(2.) The brief history of the case is as follows :- The appellants Nos. 1 and 2 instituted the suit O.S. No. 1459 of 1972 against one Ganesan, Munuswami and the first respondent herein praying for declaration of title in respect of the A Schedule property and for permanent injunction in respect thereof and for possession of the B Schedule property. It was contended that the suit property measuring 66 feet North South and 43 feet East West in Survey No. 46/2, Nehru Nagar, Kathivakkam Village was a village house site which has been described as A Schedule property and the same had been in possession and enjoyment of the ancestors of the appellants in their own right for several decades and that the appellants were entitled to the said property by virtue of survivorship and inheritance on the death of the second appellant's-husband. The appellants herein filed O.S. No. 271 of 1966 against one Shanmugham, Chinnammal, Algappan and Daniel Nadar since Shanmugham and Chinnammal had disputed the appellants title and that during the pendency of the said suit the said Shanmugham and Chinnammal died and by virtue of the appellants being the nearest heirs a decree was passed on 18-8-1972 in the said suit against the surviving defendants therein and that the appellant took delivery of the property through Court pursuant to the said decree and that by virtue of a family arrangement and partition as between the first appellant and appellants Nos. 3 and 4, appellants Nos. 1 and 2 became entitled to the suit A Schedule property and that in a portion thereof measuring 10 feet x 15 feet one Muniswami trespassed and put up a thatched structure thereon and the said Muniswami had been residing in the said hut after trespass which had been done about two years prior to the present suit and that the property trespassed has been described as B Schedule property.
(3.) On these and among other allegations, the appellants Nos. 1 and 2 prayed for the aforesaid relief.;