The plaintiff must prove continuous possession with tangible evidence, and the admission of witnesses should be considered in its entirety.

1. The Second Appeal is directed against the decree and judgment dated 28.02.1997 passed by the learned Additional Subordinate Judge, Mayiladuthurai, in A.S.No.6 of 1997, whereby the decree and judgment passed by the learned Principal District Munsif, Mayiladuthurai, dated 16.10.1996 in O.S.No.946 of 1993, were set aside and the suit was dismissed.

2. The deceased 1st appellant was the sole plaintiff and appellants 2 to 4 are the legal representatives of the deceased plaintiff and the respondents are the defendants before the trial court. The plaintiff filed the suit against the defendants for a permanent injunction restraining the defendants from interfering with her peaceful possession and enjoyment of the suit property with the following averments:

The suit property is a house and its appurtenance situated in Arockiyanatham Colony in Mayiladuthurai and the ground site of the suit property is classified as a Government Poramboke. The husband of the plaintiff (deceased 1st appellant) was a retired Police Constable. Some thirty years prior to the filing of the suit, several people occupied the Government poramboke land and constructed houses and similarly, the husband of the plaintiff also occupied the place and constructed his house in 1962 and for this, the Government officials have not objected to the same. The Mayiladuthurai Municipality has also made assessment and collected the house tax. After the death of her husband, the plaintiff continued to remain in possession of the suit property along with her family members and assessment was also changed in her name. In the said situation, Nalivutror Mempattu Sangam has also constructed modern toilet in her house with a view to benefits the poor people. Defendants 4 to 6 in order to grab the property of the plaintiff, approached the 3rd defendant, the Revenue Inspector of that area and induced him to evict the plaintiff and the 3rd defendant threatened the plaintiff that since the Government had initiated proceedings, she should vacate the premises immediately. In September 1993, defendants 3 to 6 attempted to take forcible possession of the suit property and hence the suit.

3. The 2nd defendant, the Tahsildar, Mayiladuthurai, filed a written statement stating that the suit property is classified as lane poramboke and the total extent of the same is 31684 sq.ft., out of which, the plaintiff has trespassed over an extent of 2500 sq.ft. The encroachments are within the Municipal limits and hence, no notice under the Land Encroachment Act is necessary. Since the occupation of the plaintiff has caused much hindrance to the public and traffic, the eviction was ordered and apart from that, the plaintiff is having another house in the opposite row.

4. The contesting defendants 4 to 6 filed a written statement stating that they encroached the Government poramboke land and constructed the houses and were residing there. They planted bamboo cluster and plantain and are in enjoyment of the same. Since their houses got damaged three months prior to the filing of the suit, they are residing in their relatives house. While so, the plaintiff by encroaching a portion of the 6th defendant, constructed a toilet and these defendants prevented the plaintiff from encroaching further in his property. By suppressing these facts, the plaintiff filed the suit and obtained ex parte injunction. Taking advantage of the same, the plaintiff attempted to trespass with the possession and enjoyment of these properties and for which, a complaint was given by them to the police authorities and there is no merits in the case of the plaintiff.

5. On the said pleadings, the trial court framed necessary issues and on the side of the plaintiff, the plaintiff examined herself as P.W.1 besides examining one Thomas as P.W.2 and marked Exs.A-1 to A-4 and on the side of the defendants, the 4th defendant examined himself as D.W.1 besides examining D.Ws.2 and 3 and marked Exs.B-1 to B-

8 and the Advocate Commission