No substantial questions of law arose, and the appeal was dismissed based on factual findings of lower courts.

ORDER

This second appeal is directed against the concurrent judgment and decree passed by the learned District Munsif-cum-Judicial Magistrate, Kodumudi and the learned Additional District Judge, Fast Track Court-I, Erode in O.S.No.115 of 2000 and A.S.No.112 of 2008 raising the following grounds as substantial questions of law.

a) Whether the courts below in erred in law and misdirected themselves in dismissing the suit merely on the basis of uncorroborated resurvey proceedings in the absence of any other oral or documentary evidence on the part of the defendants to reject the plaintiffs' title under Ex.A1 to A3?

b) Whether the courts below are correct in law in holding that the principle of constructive res-judicata has no application to the facts of the present case even though the judgement and decree granted in O.S.No.253 of 1983 (Ex.A8 and A9) has attained finality against the defendants more so, an exparte decree is also a valid decree under law and that it would operate as res-judicata as held in 2007 SAR

727 ?

C) Whether the courts below erred in law in holding that the failure on the part of the plaintiffs to challenge the resurvey proceedings is fatal to their case even though the civil court is competent to decide the validity of the resurvey proceedings in the absence of an appeal before the statutory authorities as held in

1998 (1) CTC 630 (FB) ?

2. The brief narration of facts is necessary for disposal of this second appeal. The parties are referred to as per their status in the original suit for the sake of convenience.

2.1. The plaintiff herein laid a suit in O.S.No.115 of 2000 on the file of the Court of District Munsif-cum-Judicial Magistrate, Kodumudi, originally seeking a permanent injunction against the defendants and thereafter, by amending the plaint, added a relief for grant of mandatory injunction directing the defendants to construct a demolished portion of 11 feet east-west wall of the suit and 11 feet length cement sheet shed of the suit property at the cost of the defendants. The suit schedule property was situated in S.No.62/2, Itchipalayam Village, on the eastern side of Erode-Karur Highways Road.

2.2.The case of the plaintiffs, as pleaded in the plaint, is that one Ganesan was the absolute owner of the suit property and his title to the said property was declared in O.S.No.253 of 1983 on the file of the District Munsif Court, Erode, as against the first defendant herein and it is from the said Ganesan, the plaitiffs acquired the Items 1 to 3 of the suit schedule property under Exhibits A1 to Ex.A3 documents and therefore, they have perfect title and possession over the suit schedule properties. It is also their further contention that the judgment and decree obtained by the vendor in O.S.No.253 of 1983 is binding on the first defendant herein and therefore, they are estopped from, any way interfering with the possession and enjoyment of the plaintiffs in the suit schedule properties.

2.3.The defendants filed their written statement denying the claim made by the plaintiffs and further contending that the suit schedule property in O.S.No.253 of 1983 is only a house property and the same has nothing to do with the suit schedule property in the present suit. According to the defendants, the suit schedule property in O.S.No.253 of 1983 is only a house property more fully described in the decree therein and the suit schedule property in the present suit is on the northern boundary of the suit scheduled property in O.S.No.253 of 1983. Thus, it is the specific contention of the defendants that the land situated in S.F.No.63 is a poromboke land and the plaintiffs cannot claim any right over the said property.

2.4. During the course of trial, the first plaintiff got examined as P.W.1 and two other witnesses were examined as P.W.2 an