The interpretation of the sale deed and the burden of proof were central to the Court's decision.

JUDGMENT

(Prayers: This Second Appeal is filed under Section 100 of Civil Procedure Code, against the Judgment and Decree in A.S.No. 73 of 1994, and dated 30.06.1994, on the file of the VI Additional Judge, City Civil Court, Madras, confirming the Judgment and Decree in O.S.No. 11628 of 1989 and dated 22.10.1991, on the file of the VII Assistant Judge, City Civil Court, Madras.

This Second Appeal is filed under Section 100 of Civil Procedure Code, against the Judgment and Decree in A.S.No. 66 of 1994, on the file of the VI Additional Judge, City Civil Court, Madras, confirming the Judgment and Decree in O.S.No. 9947 of 1988 and dated 22.10.1991, on the file of the VII Assistant Judge, City Civil Court, Madras.)

Common Judgment:

The defendants in O.S.No. 9947 of 1988 on the file of the VII Assistant City Civil Court, Chennai, are the appellants in S.A.No. 1441 of 2000.

2. The defendants in O.S.No. 11628 of 1989 on the file of the VII Assistant City Civil Court, Chennai, are the appellants in S.A.No. 1440 of 2000.

3. Joint trial was conducted in O.S.No. 9947 of 1988 and O.S.No. 11628 of 1989 and by Judgment dated 22.10.1991, both the suits were decreed, expect for the relief of mandatory injunction sought by the plaintiffs therein.

4. Aggrieved by the decree granted in both the suits, the defendants therein filed A.S.No. 66 of 1994 and A.S.No. 73 of 1994. Aggrieved by the denial of mandatory injunction, the plaintiffs in O.S.No. 11628 of 1989 filed A.S.No. 74 of 1994.

5. All the three appeal suits came up for consideration before the VIth Additional City Civil Court, Chennai and by Judgment dated 30.06.1994, all the three appeal suits were dismissed.

6. Questioning the Judgment in A.S.No. 66 of 1994, the defendants in O.S.No. 9947 of 1988 had filed S.A.No. 1441 of 2000. Questioning the Judgment in A.S.No. 73 of 1994, the defendants in O.S.No. 11628 of 1989 had filed S.A.No. 1440 of 2000. No appeal had been filed questioning the dismissal of A.S.No. 74 of 1994.

7. S.A.Nos. 1440 and 1441 of 2000 had been admitted on the following substantial questions of law:-

“1. Whether on a construction of Ex.A-7 the relief prayed for can be granted?;

2. Whether the Court below are justified in granting Decree when the plaintiffs have failed to discharge their burden with necessary evidence and materials?;

3. Whether the Courts below are justified when the finding of the facts are on the basis of misreading of evidence as well as mis-application of law?;

4. Whether the Courts below are justified when the findings are based on misconception and perverse not supported by evidence?;

5. Whether the Courts below are right in not considering the recitals and description of property in Ex.A.7 which is material irregularity as well as illegality.

6. Whether the subsequent suit filed is maintainable which is hit by Order 2 Rule 2 of the CPC?”

7. Whether the Courts below are right in granting declaration for “C” Schedule property which was not the property conveyed under sale deed dated 20.04.1988 and whether the plaintiffs are entitled to any extent more than what was conveyed under Ex.A-7?”

8. Pending the Appeal, the first appellant in both the Appeals, the first appellant in both the Appeals, V.Venkatesan had been reported dead but independently no memo had been filed. However, the other appellants are his legal heirs.

9. Pending the Second appeal by order in C.M.P.Nos. 2036 & 2037 of 2003 dated 28.08.2003, a third party had been impleaded as the 3rd respondent in both the Appeals.

O.S.No. 9947 of 1988 (VII Assistant City Civil Court, Chennai):

10. The plaintiffs Dr.R.Perumal and Mrs. P.Suryakani filed the suit against V.Venkatesan, his wife and two daughters, seeking a Judgment and Decree for permanent injunction restraining the defendants from interfering with usage of a passage for taking water from the Well using the common lavatory as described in the schedule and for costs of the sui