The main legal point established in the judgment is the necessity of establishing a valid title to the suit property and following the provisions of the Tamil Nadu Land Encroachment Act, 1905.

This second appeal has been filed against the judgment and decree, dated 31. 1995, made in A.S.No.197 of 1994, on the file of the IVth additional City Civil Court, Madras, confirming the judgment and decree, dated 22. 1994, made in O.S.No.6499 of 1991, on the file of the Vth Assistant City Civil Court, Madras.

2. The plaintiffs in the suit, in O.S.No.6499 of 1991, are the appellants in the present second appeal. The defendant in the suit is the respondent herein. The plaintiffs had filed the suit, in O.S.No.6499 of 1991, praying to declare that the notice, dated 9. 1991, issued by the defendant is illegal, arbitrary and non est in law and for a permanent injunction restraining the defendant and others from, in any manner, interfering with the plaintiffs’ enjoyment of the plaint schedule mentioned property and for costs.

3. The plaintiffs had stated that they are the owners of the land to an extent of 3 grounds and 640 sq.ft. or 22 cents, in survey No.136/1, of Koyambedu Village. The plaintiffs had stated that, originally, a larger extent of property was in the occupation and enjoyment of one Rathnam of Koyambedu Village. Rathnam had settled the said property, bearing survey No.136, in favour of his sons, by a registered settlement deed, dated 111. 1967. They had, in turn, sold an extent of 3 grounds and 640 sq.ft. or 22 cents in survey No.136, (present survey No.361), of Koyambedu Village, in favour of the plaintiffs, by way of a registered sale deed, dated 21. 1982. After acquiring the said land, the plaintiffs have been in peaceful possession and enjoyment of the said property, which has been morefully described in Item No.1 of the plaint schedule mentioned property.

4. The plaintiff had further stated that after obtaining the necessary approval of the authorities concerned, they had put up a superstructure in the said property by spending a huge amount of money. The building constructed by the plaintiffs in the suit property is at present a Kalyanamandapam in the name of `A.S.R. Kalyana Mahal. It has been further stated that item No.2 of the plaint schedule mentioned property is an extent of 7 grounds and 623 sq.ft. bearing T.S.No.1, Block No.6, Naduvakkarai Village. The said property had also been in the possession and enjoyment of the plaintiffs, as the said property had been in the possession of their vendors. The plaintiff had further stated that after constructing the superstructure in item No.1 of the plaint schedule mentioned property, they have constructed a temporary wall in the northern end of item No.2 of the plaint schedule property to prevent possible encroachment from anti social elements. Even though the plaintiffs had been in possession and enjoyment of the plaint schedule mentioned property, the defendant had issued a threat stating that he would demolish the construction in the schedule mentioned property stating that the property belongs to the State Government. The defendant had issued a notice, dated 9. 1991, calling upon the plaintiffs to raise their objections, if any, on or before 12. 1991. Through the said notice, the defendant had asked the plaintiffs to vacate the land in their possession, since they had encroached upon the said land. Thereafter, on 19. 1991, the defendant had visited the plaint schedule mentioned property and threatened the plaintiffs that he would demolish the building and that he would take necessary action to evict the plaintiffs from the suit property. In such circumstances, the plaintiff had filed the suit in O.S.No.6499 of 1991, on the file of the Vth Assistant City Civil Court, Madras.

5. In the written statement filed on behalf of the defendant, it has been stated that Item.No.1 of the schedule to the plaint had, originally, belonged to one P.R.Murugesan and others, as per the records maintained at the office of the defendant. It is not known as to how the plaintiffs’ vendors had obtained the property. It is for the plaintiffs to establish that they had got a