- (1.) S.A.No.84 of 2000 is focussed by the defendant, inveighing the judgement and decree dated 27.10.1999 passed by the learned Additional Subordinate Judge, Nagapattinam, in A.S.No.18 of 1998 reversing the judgement and decree dated 5.12.1997 passed by the learned District Munsif, Nagapattinam, in O.S.No.50 of 1996, which is one for declaration and for delivery of possession. S.A.No.777 of 2000 is focussed by defendants 3 to 11, inveighing the judgement and decree dated 27.10.1999 passed by the learned Additional Subordinate Judge, Nagapattinam, in A.S.No.7 of 1998 reversing the judgement and decree dated 5.12.1997 passed by the learned District Munsif, Nagapattinam, in O.S.No.108 of 1996, which is also one for declaration and for delivery of possession.
(2.) The parties, for the sake of convenience, are referred to here under according to their litigative status and ranking before the trial Court.
(3.) Compendiously and concisely, the germane facts absolutely necessary for the disposal of these two second appeals would run thus: (i) O.S.No.50 of 1996 was filed by the respondents in S.A.No.84 of 2000, namely, 1.John D.Britto and 2. J.B.Isabella, seeking the following reliefs: "a) to declare the plaintiffs' title to the suit property and consequently direct the defendant to deliver possession of the same to the plaintiffs. b) to grant a decree of mandatory injunction for the removal of the unauthorised construction made by the defendant in the suit property within the time to be fixed by this Hon'ble Court and in default thereof to direct the officer of the Hon'ble Court to remove the same and recover the cost from the defendant. c) to direct the defendant to pay the future profits till the delivery of possession." (extracted as such) in respect of the property described in the schedule of the plaint set out hereunder: Description of property Nagapattinam Registration District, Tiruppondi Sub-Registry, Nagapattinam Taluk 92, Velankanni Vattam and Village in Utthirimada Kovil Street, East of Street, and the Punja land belongs to Perairah West of Punja land belongs to the Parairah South of Punja land belong to Periria and Rex Martin, North of the punja land belongs to the Plaintiff in R.S.No.12/9A within the said boundary an extent of 0.54 cents in R.S.No.12/9A (New number 12/10) the portions marked as ABCDEF in plaint plain in red colour." (ii) O.S.No.108 of 1996 was filed by the respondents in S.A.No.777 of 2000, namely, 1. J.Rex @ Rex Mariadoss and 2.J.Martin, seeking the following reliefs: "a) to declare the title of the plaintiffs and consequently direct the defendants to deliver possession of the suit property to theh plaintiffs which is referred to as A B C D in the plaint plan; b) to direct the defendants to pay the future profits till the delivery of possession; c) award the cost of the suit. (extracted as such) in respect of the property described in the schedule of the plaint set out hereunder: Description of property VERNACULAR (TAMIL) PORTION DELETED (iii) In both the cases written statements were filed and the matters were resisted by the defendants concerned. (iv) Inasmuch as the property originally belonged to one and the same owner, namely, Vanderveen, and most of the factual issues were common, both, the parties as well as the trial Court though fit to conduct a joint trial. (v) Whereupon issues were framed. Up went the trial, during which, the first plaintiff in both the suits examined themselves as P.W.1 and P.W.2 along with P.Ws.3 and 4 and Exs.A1 to A37 were marked on the plaintiffs' side. On the defendants' side, the first defendant in O.S.No.108 of 1996 was examined as D.W.1 and Exs.B1 to B21 were marked. Exs.C1 and C2 were marked as Court documents. (vi) Ultimately, the trial Court dismissed both the suits. Being aggrieved by and dissatisfied with the same, the plaintiffs preferred the first appeals challenging and impugning the common judgement and decrees of the trial Court. (vii) During the pendency of the first appeals, I.A.No.105 of 1998 was filed invoking Order 41 Rule 27 of C.P.C., seeking permission to adduce additional evidence, by filing the following documents: 1. Sale Certificate issued to Thandapani Chettiar dated 5.7.1940; 2. Delivery warrant dated 14.8.1940 certified copy; 3. Sale deed executed by Thandapani Chettiar dt.27.9.1946-original; 4. Encumbrance Certificate original; 5.Sale deed by Mariya Susai Servai 21.2.1951-original (viii) No doubt, the first appellate Court, in accordance with law, heard the appeals as well as the interlocutory application together. The first appellate Court thought fit that those additional documents should be entertained and accordingly given markings to them and decided both the appeals in favour of the plaintiffs, reversing the common judgement and decrees of the trial Court and decreeing the original suits in toto.;