came in bs:_élismi.sss’$ci’;.V. these: graunds £116 defendants eppcsed the claim
-. _ giamtifis. ” 121$. the basia ef pieadirzgsg the Trial Ceurt framed ihe
‘: “fQlié§#ing i§’s31es far its cansideratien.
. _ A
“~-..__e;-::’e3o:faa.z mm e°36;,@3w 56:2 e-{§§ e/320$: C/55$ 3r§,._ 5«>fi?% 1’°°””
rs W
,-..: ‘;fi3*9″5″$~’?.};Lsfscfiw ‘;2_dJ.,;§,t:U”1R citlumcfid c,6£3r¢J3_2J?°3°”7
3. It is the case sf plaintiff that the scheciuie prepert}: or1’_ginaE13-*
beiengs to his gandfathez” Eéagappa. Afier the demise of Nagaflfist his SQf:I 1′ >
Mondappa succeeded to the scheduie property. Afiar the ,.
Mendappa the maéntiff” Eyeing his son continued in ‘%
tixzisyinent of the schedule 13i’G§36I’§3″‘. Since the
the piaixttifik possession and enjoymant 01: the
0.3, Na 123fi990 for deciaraticcm of titlé» péI”‘Iz1a;I.i€1atA
The dcfendanis entered a1?§Jearaz1V<:¥i*…§}ef0r:e;V-:11'; ?7£iéi"-~C0uffi " filed
stateznant inter alia contending tha'ii' $.agappa had 17W-i}
wives by name Akkam;:;:z and are the
childrsn of sec-and:.¥;s'i;Ce'4_'f$:§%:;patr@.;§: time sf Qriginai
owner Nagappg __hv<–§ Vproperties and sthcr
pfegxerties amifgng __h1'.<s wiires Mékamma' and Karngyamnza. Thus the
fiefendants are §_£:»ése3s'iz1 of half of the plain: schedule
grapertiss, $21 the révezgue’ ‘i’ecéz’ds refiating is the haif share in the
échééuic £23: in thefiéiifie sf Ciefendants. Even the apprzai fiisé
by fin: §ggi:g$i”:¥;§é..eniry of defendants’ name in the ETC extracts
3:32? 14333; 63:2 (A3956 r’i3’\{,’3~5)–‘¢*’J”’73″1″‘m6
0″”
net in exclusive pessessisn cf the {satire piaint schedule properties.
Therefére the plaimbff is net entitied fer iffiéféfi of deciaration ané
injunc-ticm. I find no just£fia.bIe ggeund te interfere with the finprzgefi ”
ju.dwents.
8, I see no substantiai question of 1av€:__t1iaiV .3:*§se$;’ _..f<::-. :21}-"V
zsensiderafion in this second appeah thé. appe:1.£_i'&; S
dismissed with me artist as to costs. _
LRS.f25022GG9