The need for valid evidence to support claims of possession and enjoyment, and the requirement for a comprehensive suit for partition to resolve disputes among co-owners.

(Second Appeal against the judgment and decree dated 7.7.1993 made in A.S. No.12 of 1993 on the file of the Principal Subordinate Judge, Erode confirming the judgment and decree dated 7.2.1991 in O.S.No.764 of 1988 on the file of the II Additional District Munsif, Erode.)

The appellant is the defendant who lost before both the courts below.

2. The respondent/plaintiff filed the suit for permanent injunction. The appellant/defendant resisted the same by filing the written statement. On the basis of the pleadings, learned II Additional District Munsif framed the issues and after analysing the evidence both oral and documentary adduced by both the parties, he decreed the suit as prayed for with costs. Aggrieved over the judgment and decree passed by the trial court, the appellant preferred the appeal before the first appellate court. The learned Subordinate Judge after analysing the recorded evidence and upon hearing both sides dismissed the same by confirming the judgment and decree of the trial court. Hence, the Second Appeal.

3. The averments in the plaint filed by the respondent/plaintiff are briefly as follows:-

(a) The plaintiff purchased the suit property from Muthuswamy Gounder and his wife Chinnammal by means of a registered sale deed dated 14.7.1971 and since then, he has been in possession and enjoyment of the same. In pursuance of his possession and enjoyment, the plaintiff applied to the Tahsildar, Erode to survey the suit land and assign a separate sub division after recording him as a pattadar in respect of the suit land. The Tahsildar had also effected sub-division and issued a separate patta assigning Survey No.334/2-A in respect of the suit land measuring 0.39.0 Hectare by his proceedings dated 6.6.1988.

(b) The defendant is in possession and enjoyment of the land in R.S.No.334/2-E measuring 0.45.5 Hectare. While so, the defendant without having any manner of right or title over the suit property interfered with the plaintiff's peaceful possession and enjoyment of the same. However, the plaintiff was able to prevent such attempt made by the defendant with the help of adjacent owners. It is in these circumstances that the plaintiff is constrained to file the suit for permanent injunction.

4. The averments in the written statement filed by the appellant/defendant are briefly as follows:-

(a) The allegations in the plaint are not true and correct. It is not true to say that by means of a registered sale deed dated 14.7.1971 executed by Muthusamy Gounder and his wife Chinnammal in respect of the suit property, the plaintiff is in possession and enjoyment of the same from the date of the sale deed. In fact, the plaintiff purchased only an undivided extent of 1.20-1/2 acres in old S.F.No.274/B-1 and the said Survey Field along with S.F.Nos.274/A-2, 274/A-1 and 274/C-1 have been resurveyed and assigned Re-Survey No.334/2. Hence, the plaintiff is only a co-owner in the above said land in R.S.No.334/2 and therefore he is not entitled to exclusive possession of any specific land in the said Survey Field. Since there is no partition among the co-owners of the suit land, the suit for permanent injunction is not maintainable and therefore the same is liable to be dismissed in limine.

(b) The allegation that on the basis of the application filed by the plaintiff, the suit land was sub-divided and a separate sub-division number has been assigned to the same is denied as false. The defendant was not given any notice with regard to such resurvey of the suit land as contemplated under Tamil Nadu Survey and Boundaries Act. Since the plaintiff is an influential person, he might have obtained certain orders from the revenue authorities which are not binding on this defendant.

(c) Similarly, the allegation with reference to the alleged attempt to interfere with the plaintiff's possession of the suit land is not true for the simple reason that the plaintiff has not been in exclusive possession and enjoyment of the same. It follows