COMMON JUDGMENT

The plaintiff in O.S.No.503 of 1983 on the file of the District Munsif Court, Chengalpet, is the appellant in both the Second Appeals. The suit in O.S.No.503 of 1983 had been filed by the plaintiff C.B.Panchakshara Mudaliar originally against two defendants namely, Valliammal and her younger brother Sathiyappan, seeking a judgment and decree of partition of the suit properties into four equal parts and to allot him three such parts in item No.2 and two such parts in item No.1 and also for damages of Rs.2,500/- being the value of Velikathan trees alleged to have been cut and carried away by the defendants and for costs of the suit.

2.Pending the suit, the 2nd defendant, Sathiyappan died and his legal representatives were brought on record as 3rd to 5th defendants. By judgment dated 29.07.1993, the suit was decreed with respect to grant of partition and separate possession, but dismissed with respect to the relief of damages for the value of the Velikathan trees said to have been cut and carried away by the defendants. Questioning the denial of grant of damages, the plaintiff filed A.S.No.10 of 1994 before the Additional Sub Court, Chengalpet and questioning the grant of partition and separate possession, the 1st defendant Valliammal filed A.S.No.50 of 1993 also before the Additional Sub Court, Chengalpet. Both the appeals were heard together and a common judgment was delivered on 28.06.1994. The learned Additional Sub Judge, Chengalpet allowed A.S.No.50 of 1993 and dismissed A.S.No.10 of 1994. In effect, the suit in O.S.No.503 of 1983 was dismissed in entirety. Questioning the judgment of the First Appellate Court in the two appeal suits, the plaintiff, C.B.Panchakshara Mudaliar filed S.A.No.1166 of 1994 against the judgment in A.S.No.50 of 1993 and S.A.No.1167 of 1994 against the judgment in A.S.No.10 of 1994.

3.S.A.No.1166 of 1994 had been admitted on the following three substantial questions of law:-

“1.Whether in the case of vacant site, possession should follow title?

2.Whether the defendants as a co-sharer cannot prescribe title by adverse possession?

3.Whether the lower appellate Court's findings are vitiated on misreading of the evidence and non-

application of the law?”

4. S.A.No.1167 of 1994 had been admitted on the following one substantial question of law:-

“Whether the plaintiff would be entitled to damages on the evidence adduced in the case as a co-sharer?”

O.S.No.503 of 1983 (District Munsif Court, Chengalpet):-

5.The plaintiff C.B.Panchakshara Mudaliar claimed that he was entitled to 1/2 share in item No.1 of the suit property and 3/4 share in item No.2 of the suit property. He claimed that he had purchased the property under sale deed dated 20.09.1954 and 31.10.1977 executed by Sundaramurthy Mudaliar and Gnanambal respectively. It was further claimed that both Sundaramurthy Mudaliar and Gnanambal had common ancestors. It was claimed that the property consisted of house and backyard. It was stated that originally Ramartha Mudaliar and Iyyakannu Mudaliar were both entitled to 1/2 share each in the entire suit property and also on the property North-West of the suit property. The 1/2 share belonging to Iyyakannu Mudaliar was taken by Gnanambal as his only heir as his daughter-in-law. The said 1/2 share which belonged to Gnanambal was purchased by the plaintiff by sale deed dated 31.10.1977. The other half share belonging to Ramartha Mudaliar was taken by Santhana Mudaliar and Kandaswamy Mudaliar in equal parts. After the death of Santhana Mudaliar his son Sundaramurthy Mudaliar became entitled to 1/4 share. The daughter-in-law of Kandaswamy Mudaliar, Valliammal became entitled to other 1/4 share. She succeed to the estate of her husband Thiruvengeda Mudaliar. Sundaramurthy Mudaliar sold his 1/4 share to the plaintiff under the sale deed dated 20.09.1954. It was claimed that the plaintiff was therefore entitled to 3/4 share in item No.2 and the other 1/4 share was entitled to the 1st defendant Valliammal. Cl