The main legal point established in the judgment is the interpretation and applicability of Section 14 of the Tamil Nadu Survey and Boundaries Act, 1923, and the jurisdiction of the civil court in adjudicating property rights.

The appellant in S.A.No.166 of 2009, namely, Sellakumarasamy, filed the suit O.S.No.88 of 1995 seeking the following relief:

"to grant permanent injunction restraining the defendants, their men, heirs, assigns from in any manner trespassing into the suit property or interfering with the plaintiffs exclusive possession and enjoyment of the suit property; or in any manner preventing the plaintiffs from cutting the standing trees in the suit property"

The respondents 1 to 5 in S.A.No.166 of 2009 filed the suit O.S.No.130 of 1995 seeking the following relief:

"To direct the first defendant, by way of mandatory injunction, to rectify all the revenue records including filed Map with regard to suit B Schedule property R.S.BNo.107/1 of Virumandampalayam Village either excluding the portion of 0-531/2 acres of old Survey Number 386/1 that is southern portion of suit A schedule property including in the same or to include the name of plaintiffs also as proprietors of the same."

As such, both the suits were interrelated and interlinked, interconnected and entwined with each other, which necessitated the lower Court to correctly conduct the joint trial and pronounce the common judgment.

(b) In both the suits, the defendants concerned resisted the suit. During the trial, on the side of the plaintiffs, the first plaintiff in O.S.No.130 of 1995, examined himself as P.W.1 apart from examining one Maruthachalam as P.W.2 and marked Exs.A1 to A7. The second defendant in O.S.No.130 of 1995 examined himself as D.W.1 apart from examining Palanisamy as D.W.2 and Easwaramurthy as D.W.3 and Ex.B1 to Ex.B8 were marked. Ananthakrishnan-Advocate Commissioner, was examined as C.W.1 and Exs.C1 to C5 were also marked.

(c) Ultimately the trial Court dismissed the suit O.S.No.88 of 1995 filed for injunction by Sellakumarasamy-the appellant in S.A.No.166 of 2009 and decreed the suit O.S.No.130 of 1995 filed by Swaminathan et al.

(d) Being dissatisfied with the said common judgement, A.S.Nos.56 of 2004 and 56 of 2005 were filed by Sellakumaraswamy for nothing but to be dismissed by the appellate Court confirming the judgement and decree of the lower Court.

2. Being unhinged and disconcerted by the said judgements and decrees, these second appeals have been filed by Sellakumarasamy on various grounds and also suggesting the following substantial questions of law:

"a) Is not the suit barred under Section 14 of Tamil Nadu Survey and Boundaries Act, 1923?

b) Whether the courts below are justified in decreeing the suit for mandatory injunction directing the Government to rectify the resurvey and revenue records, without the respondents 1 to 5/plaintiffs establishing their title to the suit property?"

3. A bare perusal of and poring over the typed set of papers, including the copies of the judgments of both the Courts below, would display and demonstrate, expatiate and evince that the plaintiffs in O.S.No.130 of 1995, namely, Swaminathan and four others impugning and remonstrating the procedure adopted by the Revenue officials, filed the suit seeking comprehensive relief, as set out supra. Whereas the second appellant in both the appeals, namely, Sellakumarasamy, in O.S.No.88 of 1995 sought for injunction.

4. The main thrust of the contention of the second appellant-Sellakumarasamy would be to the effect that the Civil Court has got no jurisdiction to entertain the suit O.S.No.130 of 1995 filed by Swaminathan and others on the ground that the fixation of boundaries by the Revenue authority concerned, under the Tamil Nadu Survey and Boundaries Act, 1923(hereinafter referred to as the Act in short), could be challenged within three years from the date of publication in the gazette. Hence, it is just and necessary to extract hereunder Section 14 of the Act:

"14. Institution of a suit in civil Court within three years to establish rights claimed in respect of the boundary of the property surveyed. -Any person deeming himself aggrieved by the determination of a