The legal presumption of genuineness of certified copies, the allowance of amendment of pleadings to determine the real issue of title, and the grant of declaratory relief based on the peculiar facts and circumstances of the case.

K. Raviraja Pandian, J.

The appellants, who are defendants in original suits Nos.209 of 1996 and 63 of 1995 filed Appeal Suits Nos.233 and 234 of 2000 against the judgment and decree of the trial Court made in those suits granting the relief of permanent injunction as prayed for with declaratory relief, in favour of the respondents/plaintiffs. The other four appeals in Tr.A.S. Nos. 1027 to 1030 of 2001 are filed aggrieved by the dismissal of the suits filed by the respective appellants/plaintiffs in those suits, for injunction against the respondents/plaintiffs in Original Suits Nos.353, 356, 359 and 404 of 1997.

2. The facts of the case is as follows:

The suit in O.S. Nos.209 of 1996 was filed by one Senthil Kumari against Sundaram, Dhanalakshmi and the legal heirs of Ramadoss for the relief of permanent injunction on the ground that the suit property in an extent of 66 cents was originally owned by one Rengasamy Naidu. One of the sons Ramanujam Naidu filed a suit in O.S. No.198 of 1937 against his father Rengasamy Naidu and his brother Rajagopal Naidu for the relief of injunction in respect of the suit property and other properties. In that suit a compromise decree was passed on 21.07.1937. In that decree A schedule property was allotted to Ramanujam Naidu and B schedule property was allotted to Rajagopal Naidu. The suit property was item No.3 of B schedule. By virtue of the compromise decree, the said Rajagopal Naidu had been in possession and enjoyment of the suit property. The said Rajagopal Naidu has also asserted his title in subsequent land acquisition proceedings in OP. No.76 of 1955. In the said acquisition proceedings a portion of the property in survey No.4045 was sought to be acquired for the formation of salai road extension. Consequently, an award was passed in Award No.15 of 1954 on 23.11.1954 in his favour. The said acquisition proceedings has been quashed by the High Court in writ petition No.17 of 1955. Consequently, the award passed in favour of Rajagopal Naidu was referred to the Revenue Divisional Officer, Trichy and the compensation was repaid and the land was repossessed by Rajagopal Naidu. Subsequently, the said Rajagopal Naidu obtained patta and adangal in his favour. The said Rajagopal Naidu executed a sale deed on 26.05.1994 in favour of the Government in respect of a portion of the property in survey No.4045 (New No.84) through his power agent Senthil Kumari under Ex.A.35 (4525 sq. ft.). Senthil Kumari purchased the property in an extent of 10.96 cents from Rajagopal Naidu under Ex.A1 by sale deed dated 27.04.1994. After the purchase of the property, which is the subject matter of the suit from Rajagopal Naidu and his legal heirs, the respondents/ plaintiffs are in actual possession and enjoyment of the same. As the property is a vacant site, the plaintiffs/respondents took steps to raise a compound wall on 19.03.1996. The appellants/ defendants along with others attempted to interfere with the peaceful possession and enjoyment of the property. On that cause of action, the respondents/plaintiffs filed a suit for injunction.

3. The appellants/defendants resisted the suit by contending, inter alia, that Rajagopal Naidu and his legal representatives have no right, interest, or title over the suit property. Thus the sale deed executed by Rajagopal Naidu and his legal heirs in favour of the respondents/plaintiff would not confer any right or title on them. Ramanujam was the owner of the said property as he obtained the same under the compromise decree. Ramanujam Naidu executed a will in favour of his foster son Ramadoss. The defendants, the legal heirs of Ramadoss are the absolute owners. They are in possession and enjoyment of the suit property till date. The appellants/defendants also denied the factum that Rajagopal Naidu got the property in the compromise decree in O.S. No.198 of 1937.

4. The case of the plaintiff in O.S. No.63 of 1995 is as follows:

The suit in O.S. No.63 of 1995 was filed by