The central legal point established in the judgment is the requirement for the plaintiff to prove title and possession in accordance with the law to succeed in a property dispute.

1. This second appeal has been filed against the judgment and decree, dated 15.3.2005, made in A.S.No.63 of 2003, on the file of the Subordinate Court, Kallakurichi, reversing the judgment and decree, dated 21.3.2003, made in O.S.No.271 of 1996, on the file of the III Additional District Munsif Court, Kallakurichi.

2. The plaintiff in the suit, in O.S.No.271 of 1996, is the appellant in the present second appeal. The defendant in the said suit is the respondent herein.

3. The suit, in O.S.No.170 of 1990, had been filed for a decree declaring the title of the plaintiff in respect of the suit property and for a permanent injunction restraining the defendant and their men and agents from encroaching upon the suit property and in the alternative for recovery of possession and for mesne profits, and for costs.

4. The plaintiff had stated that the suit property and certain other properties had, originally, vested with the Government. The properties had been divided into house sites and the Government had issued patta to various persons. While allotting the plots, Plot No.38 had been allotted to Thandaan of Nainarpalayam. Since, the beneficiaries did not know about the plots which had been allotted to them they had occupied various plots, as per their convenience. They had also constructed the houses in their respective plots and they have been residing therein.

5. After an enquiry had been conducted by the concerned Government authorities an order, dated 23.8.1990, had been passed issuing patta in respect of the plots, which were being enjoyed by the beneficiares concerned. Since, Thandaan was in possession and enjoyment of Plot No.15 for more than 12 years, patta had been issued to him in respect of the said plot. While so, he had sold the vacant site allotted to him, to the plaintiff, on 7.10.1987, for a consideration of Rs.10,000/-. The possession of the property had been handed over to the plaintiff, on the same date. Thereafter, patta had been issued to Thandaan, on 23.8.1990, for Plot No.15. The plaintiff had started construction works in the plot. The defendant has no right or title in respect of the suit property. However, since the defendants were attempting to trespass upon the suit property, the plaintiff had filed the suit, in O.S.No.271 of 1996, on the file of the III Additional District Munsif Court, Kallakurichi.

6. In the written statements filed by the defendants, it had been stated that the plaintiff is not having any right or title in respect of the suit property. It is for the plaintiff to prove her title and possession, with regard to the suit property. The suit property was never in the enjoyment of Thandaan, nor had he constructed a house therein. Thandaan was not in possession and enjoyment of the suit property, as claimed in the plaint. It is true that Thandaan had been allotted Plot No.38, by the Government. However, he had no right to sell it, as per the conditions of assignment. Further, the sale of Plot No.15, alleged to have been made in favour of the plaintiff, cannot be valid in the eye of law as, Thandaan had no interest or title in respect of the said plot. Further, the sale of the allotted plots cannot be made, contrary to the conditions of assignment.

7. It had also been stated that, for the past 14 years, the first defendant’s father Chinnapaiyan was in possession and enjoyment of Plot No.15. It is Chinnapaiyan, who had put up a thatched shed in the suit property. However, since, the plaintiff is a wealthy lady, she had obtained an order from the Special Tahsildar (Adi Dravidar Welfare), Kallakurichi, one week prior to the filing of the suit, on 23.8.1990, even though the Special Tahsildar (Adi Dravidar Welfare), Kallakurichi, had no power to issue an order transferring the patta. Further, the plaintiff is said to have purchased Plot No.15, from Thandaan, in the year, 1987, even though the patta transfer order is said to have been issued in the name of Thandaan, in the year, 1990.

8. I