A judgment in a previous suit is not admissible in evidence to prove the truth of the matter decided, except for the purpose of proving the existence of any right and for this purpose any transaction by which the right was created, claimed or recognised, can be adduced in evidence.

In both the above second appeals, one A. Munuswami is the appellant and one R. Sethuraman is the sole respondent. Two suits were filed on the file of the II Additional Subordinate Judge, Tiruchirapalli, one by the respondent namely, O.S. No. 93 of 1982 and the other by the appellant namely, O.S. 213 of 1982. O.S. No. 93 of 1982 is for a declaration that the respondent is the owner of the suit property and for recovery of possession of the same from the appellant. There was also a claim for rent or damages for use and occupation. O. S. No. 213 of 1982 is for a permanent injunction to restrain the respondent from interfering with the appellant's possession of the very same property. For the purpose of convenience I will refer to the parties Munuswami as the appellant and Sethuraman as the respondent. The second appeals have been argued at length and I am of the opinion that it will be convenient to refer to the pleadings and the documents filed in the case before referring to the judgments of the Courts below as well as the arguments advanced on behalf of the parties.

2.The respondent's case in O. S. No. 93 of 1982 is as follows:-

An extent of 2 acres comprised in T.S. No. 35/3 Abhisekapuram Village in Tiruchirapalli, originally belonged to the Defence Department. By a sale deed EX.A-1 dt. 27-5-1939 one Singaravelu Pillai purchased the said property. By a document dt. 2-8-1939 (Ex.A-2) Singaravelu Pillai sold the property to Karpoorasundaram on 27-12-1957. The eastern half of the property of the extent of one acre was sold by Karpoorasundaram to one E. Padmanabhan and others under Ex.A3. The western extent of one acre was sold by Karpoorasundaram to one Rajeswari Ammal by a document dt. 10-2-1966 under Ex.A-4. Both the western and eastern extents of the said property were purchased by the plaintiff by documents dt. 14-12-1978 and 24-1-1981 respectively under Exs.A-5 and A-6. In all these documents northern boundary is shown as Dindigul Road.

3.When the eastern half was under the possession of E. Padmanabhan and his other co-sharers, certain buildings were put up in the eastern half. One Kuppanna Gounder was the tenant under the said E. Padmanabhan. The tenant had also put up some construction. The appellant is said to be one of the three sub-tenants of the said Kuppanna Gounder in the buildings constructed by Kuppanna Gounder. The property in possession of the appellant is the suit property. Padmanabhan filed an eviction petition under the Tamil Nadu Buildings (Lease and Rent Control) Act, W.R.C.O.P. No. 335 of 1972 for eviction of Kuppanna Gounder. According to the respondent the suit property now in possession of the appellant formed part of the eviction proceedings. An order of eviction was made on 31-1-1973. In pursuance of the eviction order, possession was taken from Kuppanna Gounder through Court on 13-6-1973. The delivery Akthatchi is marked as Ex.A-15 and the same has been attested by the appellant. Padmanabhan also filed O.S. No. 409 of 1973 for recovery of arrears of rent from Kuppanna Gounder. Kuppanna Gounder has claimed a set off and the suit was ultimately decreed for a sum of Rs. 16, 489.55 on 11-11-1975. Copy of the decree is Ex. A-16 and the written statement of Kuppanna Gounder is Ex.A-17.

4.The next important averment in the plaint is that the appellant became a tenant under Padmanabhan on a monthly rent of Rs. 100/- in respect of the suit property. According to the plaint, this suit property is part of the main building having Door No. 4-E. Padmanabhan required vacant possession and issued notice to the appellant. The alleged tenancy was claimed title to the property in himself. It is under these circumstances that the suit was filed for the reliefs above mentioned.

5.The contention of the appellant as defendant, was that the suit property never formed part of T.S. No. 35/3, said to have been purchased by Singaravelu Pillai under Ex.A-1. The suit property is lying on the northern side of the said T.S.