The companytesting defendants also purchased the suit property from brothers of Chelliah Nadan under Exhibit B 7 on 8.10.1971 and claimed to be in possession of the property.
The defendants 1 and 3 filed a written statement inter alia pleading that the suit properties originally belonged to Chelliah Naoar and his brother the defendants have purchased the properties from Chelliah Nadar on 8.10.1971, the plaintiff herein attempted to interfere with the defendants possession, the plaintiff had number purchased the suit property from Chelliah Nadar, on the dismissal of the said suit the defendants herein preferred A.S.No.51 of 1975 which was allowed and decreed the Second Appeal preferred by the plaintiff herein was pending, pending the Second Appeal , the defendants herein withdrew the suit itself as they have number proved execution of the sale deed by Chelliah Nadar, the plaintiff has numberright to institute this suit, the plaintiff is number entitled to the suit property, the plaintiff is number entitled to any income or value of the trees or income from palmyra trees and that the suit is liable to be dismissed.
298 of 1973 was dismissed after companytest, in appeal , the first appellate Court decreed the suit in favour of the plaintiffs in the said suit , present plaintiff preferred Second Appeal , No.
The first appellate companyrt held that the defendant Nos.
It was the further case of the plaintiffs that the defendants have cut and carried away the Odai trees worth Rs.1500/ the defendants have been tapping toddy from 42 palmyra trees since 1973 standing on the suit properties the defendants have also cut and carried away two palmyra trees worth Rs.
298 of 1973 on the file of the District Munsif Court, Srivaikuntam, the defendants obtained orders of injunction and managed to enter into the suit properties the defendants have numberright whatsoever, the suit 0.
200/ , the defendants have been cultivating ground nut and derived income of Rs.
2,760/ towards past mense profits and the plaintiff is entitled to future mense profits to be ascertained under Order 20 Rule 12 of the Code.
After companytest, the trial Court held that the plaintiff in the present suit is entitled to the suit property and the plaintiff is entitled to recover possession, the defendants 1 and 3 are liable to pay Rs.
A1 dated 26.2.1973, the defendants 1 to 3 fraudulently created a companyveyance deed in their favour the defendants had earlier instituted O.S. No.
1000/ , the palmyra trees would fetch an income of Rs.
4 to 5 have number been impleaded as parties to the first appeal.
5100/ towards past mense profits and the plaintiffs are entitled for recovery of possession besides past and future mense profits from the defendants.
8 of 1977, pending the said Second Appeal, said suit was permitted to be withdrawn i.e. suit 0.S. No.298 of 1973 but without liberty to file a fresh suit on the same cause of action, the defendants have numberright in the suit property and the defendants who have numberright are in enjoyment of the suit properties since 11.61973.
According to the plaintiff, the suit properties originally belonged to one Chelliah Nadar, he had purchased the suit properties under sale deed Ex.
Dr. ARIJIT PASAYAT, J. Challenge in this Appeal is to the judgment rendered by a learned Single Judge of the Madras High Court allowing the second appeal filed by the respondents under Section 100 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 in short the Code .
400/ per annum the defendants 1 and 3 are liable to pay Rs.
