The main legal point established in the judgment is the application of the bar under Order 9 Rule 9 read with Section 9 of the Civil Procedure Code, which rendered the suits not maintainable.

JUDGMENT

(Prayer: Second Appeal filed under Section 100 of the Civil Procedure Code, against the judgment and decree, made in A.S.No.397 of 1994, dated, 06.11.1996 on the file of the Principal District Judge, Tuticorin reversing the judgment and decree made in O.S.No.333 of 1991, dated, 01.11.1994 on the file of the Subordinate Judge, Tuticorin.)

Second Appeal filed under Section 100 of the Civil Procedure Code, against the judgment and decree, dated, 17.03.2003 on the file of the learned Additional District Judge, Tuticorin passed in A.S.No.52 of 2002 confirming the judgment and decree of the learned Principal District Munsif, Tuticorin passed in O.S.No.269 of 1998, dated, 23.08.2000.

Second Appeal filed under Section 100 of the Civil Procedure Code, against the judgment and decree made in A.S.No.200 of 1993 on the file of Sub-Court, Tuticorin, dated, 20.02.2004 by reversing the judgment and decree made in O.S.No.506 of 1991 on the file of Additional District Munsif, Tuticorin, dated, 13.09.1993.)

Common Judgment:

S.A.No.166 of 1997 arises out of a suit in O.S.No.333 of 1991 on the file of Sub-Court, Tuticorin. The said suit was filed for the relief of declaration of title and permanent injunction over first schedule property and for recovery of possession of second schedule property. The suit was decreed by the trial Court. The defendants preferred A.S.No.397 of 1994 before Principal District Court, Tuticorin. The learned appellate Judge was pleased to allow the appeal. As against the same, S.A.No.166 of 1997 has been filed by the plaintiff.

2. S.A.No.666 of 2003 arises out of O.S.No.269 of 1998 on the file of Principal District Munsif Court, Tuticorin. The said suit was filed for the relief of permanent injunction. The suit was dismissed by the trial Court. The plaintiff has filed A.S.No.52 of 2002 before Additional District Court cum Chief Judicial Magistrate, Tuticorin. The learned first appellate Judge concurred with the findings of the trial Court and dismissed the appeal. As against the concurrent findings, the plaintiff has filed the above second appeal.

3. S.A(MD)No.2 of 2004 arises out of O.S.No.506 of 1991 on the file of Additional District Munsif Court, Tuticorin. The suit was filed for the relief of declaration of title and permanent injunction over the first schedule property, recovery of possession of the second schedule property and for mandatory injunction to remove the encroachment in the second schedule property. The suit was dismissed by the trial Court. The plaintiff filed A.S.No.200 of 1993 on the file of Sub-Court, Tuticorin. The learned first appellate Judge was pleased to partly decree the suit, granting the prayer for declaration of title and permanent injunction over first schedule property and for recovery of possession of the second schedule property. The prayer for mandatory injunction was rejected by the first appellate Court. Challenging the said decree, the defendants have filed the above second appeal.

4. Pleadings in S.A.No.166 of 1997:

The said suit has been filed with the prayer for declaration of title and permanent injunction over first schedule property and recovery of possession of the second schedule property. An extent of 3.21 cents in Survey No.213/4 and western most 15 cents in Survey No.213/7 is shown as the first schedule property. The north western corner having an extent of 3.67 cents in Survey No.213/7 is shown as the second schedule property.

5. The plaintiffs, who are sisters have contended that the suit schedule property was originally purchased by one Kuppusami Pillai in a Court auction to an extent of undivided 50 cents on 27.12.1930. He has also taken possession pursuant to the said Court auction purchase. According to the plaintiffs, the said Kuppusami Pillai has sold the said undivided extent of 50 cents in favour of one Pirakasi Ammal under Exhibit A.4 on 24.02.1933. The said Pirakasi Ammal has sold the said 50 cents in favour of one Krishnammal under Exhibit A.3 on 11.06.1949.