Requisites of framing of points for determination.

1. Angamuthu Asari, the plaintiff filed the suit for declaration of title and for permanent injunction in respect of the suit property against the defendant Periyan. The trial Court dismissed the suit. Aggrieved by that, the plaintiff filed an appeal before the first appellate Court, which in turn dismissed the same. Hence, this second appeal by the plaintiff/appellant having lost in both the Courts below.

2. The case of the appellant/plaintiff in brief is as follows: “The suit property originally belonged to the Government. The Special Tahsildar assigned the suit property to one Ramasamy Pillai. The said Ramasamy Pillai died intestate about 10 years ago leaving his four sons as his legal heirs. The plaintiff purchased the suit property from them under the sale deed dated 20.11.1980. From then onwards, the plaintiff has been in possession and enjoyment of the suit property paying kist. The defendant being a Sarkar Thotti in the village is attempting to trespass into the property and harvest the paddy crops raised by the plaintiff. Hence, the suit for declaration of title and permanent injunction.”

3. The case of the respondent/defendant is as follows:“The plaintiff cannot claim legal title to the suit property as the legal heirs of Ramasamy Pillai had no right to sell the suit property to the plaintiff. In the deed of assignment by which the property was assigned to Ramasamy Pillai, there is a condition that it should not be sold to any person other than a person belonging to Scheduled Caste. The sale deed stated to have been executed to the plaintiff who is not a Harijan, cannot be valid, since such a sale is in violation of the conditions contained in the deed of assignment. Earlier, there was a dispute with reference to the possession of the suit property and the matter went to the Sessions Court and then to the High Court. Both the forums held that the defendant alone is in possession and enjoyment of the property. The suit property was enjoyed by his father earlier and after the death of his father, the defendant has been in enjoyment for about 30 years. Hence, the plaintiff would be entitled to any relief sought for in the suit.”

4. Before the trial Court, on behalf of the plaintiff, P.Ws.1 to 3 were examined and Exs.A-1 to A-14 were marked. On behalf of the defendant, D.Ws.1 to 3 were examined and Exs.B-1 to B-11 were marked.

5. On consideration of the evidence, oral and documentary, the trial Court dismissed the suit filed by the plaintiff holding that the plaintiff had not established either title or possession. The said judgment and decree were challenged by the plaintiff before the first appellate Court, which in turn dismissed the same confirming the judgment and decree of the trial Court.

6. Challenging these judgments and decrees, Mr.P.Valliappan, learned counsel appearing for the appellant/plaintiff would argue at length stating that both the courts below have committed serious illegality by giving the finding arrived at by them and as such, the second appeal has to be allowed.

7. In support of the finding of both the Courts below, Mr.D.Rajagopalan, learned counsel appearing for the respondent/defendant with equal vehemence would plead that there is not illegality whatsoever in the conclusion arrived at by both the Courts below and as such, the second appeal is liable to be dismissed.

8. When the second appeal came up for admission, this Court ordered notice of motion directing for the issue of notice to the respondent. On receipt of the notice, the counsel for the respondent entered appearance and as agreed by both the parties, the matter was taken up for final disposal and the counsel for both the parties were heard at length.

9. Mr.P.Valliappan, learned counsel for the appellant though raised several substantial questions of law in the memorandum of appeal grounds would specifically argue on two important questions of law. The gist of the said questions of law is as follows:

.(i) Whether