No injunction can be granted against the true owner.

1. Since caveat was entered, I heard the counsel for respondent also at the time of admission itself.

2. Parties herein will be referred according to their rank in the suit.

.3. Plaintiff filed O.S.No. 366 of 1993 on the file of District Munsif Court, Sathur to declare his title to the property and for consequential injunction to restrain the defendant, his men and agent from interfering with his possession and enjoyment of plaint schedule property and to pay cost of the suit. It is stated in the plaint that property originally belonged to one Shanmuga Nadar, who is the grandfather of plaintiff. After his demise, suit property devolved on plaintiff in oral partition and eversince oral partition, he is is exclusive possession of the same for the past 40 years. Patta for the property stands in the name of plaintiff with effect from 11. 1959. Plaintiff is also paying kist to the property from 20.5.1959. Patta pass book is also given in the name of plaintiff by Tahsildar, Sathur.

4. Reason for filing the suit is stated to be that on 10. 1993, defendant along with his men, came to the suit property and tried interfere with the peaceful possession of plaintiff. Though plaintiff restrained defendant plaintiff apprehends interference of defendant in enjoyment of suit property. The cause of action for the suit arose on 11. 1959 on which date patta for suit property was given to plaintiff, 12. 1979 when patta pass book was issued to plaintiff and on 10. 1993 when defendant attempted to interfere in the possession of plaintiff. Suit was therefore filed by plaintiff to declare his title to the suit property and for consequential injunction.

5. In the description of property, it is stated that property included Block No. 20, T.S.No. 68, vacant site in Ward-D, Sivakasi town, Sattur Taluk having an area of 1265 sq.metres. In brackets it is stated Viswanatham village old patta No. 52, Survey No. 310/1-0.55 cents.

6. It is stated by appellant, which is not controverted by respondent that 1265 sq. metres will be nearly 35 cents and not 55 cents.

.7. In the written statement filed by the defendant, they denied the title of plaintiff. According to defendant, suit property is a portion of larger area having more than 2.73 acres in pymash No. 350, originally belonged to Ramasamy Naicker, son of Rengappa Naicker. It is their case that Ramasamy Naicker was in exclusive possession and enjoyment of property. Ramasamy Naicker leased out an extent of 9 cents on the south west to the local fund for quarrying purpose. Whileso, appellant purchased the property through its secretaries as per sale deed dated 8. 1921 for valuable consideration of Rs. 2, 500. It is said that eversince the date of purchase, defendant is in possession of the property. The allegation that attempt to trespass is denied. Defendant prayed for dismissal of the suit.

8. On the above pleadings, trial court took oral and documentary evidence. Exs.A1 to A5 were marked on the side of plaintiff and plaintiff got himself examined as PW.1. On the side of defendant, Exs. B1 and B2 were marked and the present Secretary got himself examined as DW1.

9. Trial Court after evaluating entire evidence came to the conclusion that plaintiff is in exclusive possession of the property and on the basis of patta granted by the authorities title was also declared. The suit was decreed as prayed for.

10. The matter was taken on appeal in A.S.No.176 of 1996 on the file of Additional Subordinate Judge’s Court, Srivilliputhur. Lower appellate court also dismissed the appeal confirming the decree and judgment of the trial court.

11. Lower appellate court found that the entire extent of property in 2 acre and 73 cents as contended by appellant. It is also inam property and lower court also found that as per Ex.B1, defendant’s predecessor purchased the property. After abolition of inam, pymash No. 350 was divided into two as 350/a and 350/1. Lower appellate court further found that as per