The main legal point established is that a judgment and decree passed without proper evaluation of evidence and in a slip-shod manner can be set aside under Section 115 of the Code of Civil Procedure.

1. This Civil Revision Petition has been filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, praying to set aside the judgment and decree in O.S.No.3 of 2002 on the file of the District Munsif Court, Chengalpattu. The main contention of the revision petitioner, who is a third party to the suit proceedings, is that the Trial Court decreed the suit mechanically without application of mind resulting in grave injustice being caused to the revision petitioner herein. Therefore, she applied for leave for filing the Civil Revision Petition and after obtaining leave, the above Civil Revision Petition has been filed for the aforesaid relief.

2. Normally, this Court will not entertain any Civil Revision Petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India against a judgment and decree passed in a suit, as the aggrieved party could very well maintain a fully-fledged First Appeal to the Appellate Court. However, considering the nature of the case and the peculiarity of the judgment passed by the Trial Court, I consider this revision petition as an extraordinary one and consequently proceed to dispose off the same.

3. O.S.No.3 of 2002 was filed by one Mariappan, who is the first respondent herein, for a declaration, declaring his title to the suit properties and for a permanent injunction restraining the defendants from in any manner interfering with the plaintiff's possession and enjoyment of the suit properties. The suit property is situated in 23, Vengadamangalam Village, Guduvancherry Firka, Chengalpattu Taluk and comprised in old S.No.91/6 of an extent of 2.42 Ac. Kist. The first defendant in the suit is one Lakshmipathi, the second defendant herein and the second defendant in the suit is one Elumalai, the third respondent herein. The revision petitioner herein / a third party purchased the suit property from the second defendant in the suit / the third respondent herein.

4. The case of the plaintiff in O.S.No.3 of 2002 is that, the suit properties were originally owned by his wife Nesamani and it was situated in S.No.91/E measuring an extent of Ac. 2.42 cents. The plaintiff's wife purchased the property from one Deivayani Ammal under an oral sale. The plaintiff's wife has been in possession of the suit properties since 1980, cultivating the land and by paying kists and other charges. In any event, by her continuous possession and enjoyment for more than the statutory period, the plaintiff's wife has also prescribed her title. Since her possession was sought to be disturbed by 1) Deivayani Ammal, 2) Lakshmipathy and 3) Ramakrishnan Pillai, she filed a suit in O.S.No.430 of 1989 on the file of the District Munsiff Court, Chengalpattu, for a permanent injunction. Though the suit was dismissed, she succeeded in the appeal filed in A.S.No.67 of 1990 on the file of the District Munsiff Court, Chengalpattu. After obtaining a decree for permanent injunction on 29.01.1991, in A.S.No.67 of 1990, the plaintiff's wife applied for grant of patta on 18.06.1996. On 19.03.1997, the Tahsildhar, Chengalpattu informed that the decree obtained by her is only for a permanent injunction and therefore, unless the title is declared by the Court the patta could not be issued to her. To her surprise, she was further informed that S.No.91/6 has been sub-divided into 91/6A, 91/6B2 and 91/6B1 and items 1 and 2 of the suit property have been in the name of the second defendant / Elumalai and item No.3 has been in the name of the first Defendant / Lakshmipathy. According to the plaintiff, the defendants have no title nor possession. The second defendant is claiming that he has purchased the property, but, the same was made subsequent to the decree obtained by his wife. His wife Nesamani executed two settlement deeds in favour of the plaintiff settling the suit property. By virtue of the settlement deeds, the plaintiff has become the owner and he is now in possession of the same. Therefore, the suit in O.S.No.3 of 2002 has been filed for t