The central legal point established in the judgment is the requirement for the plaintiff to prove the validity of the will and the relevance of boundaries prevailing over measurements in property disputes.

1. This appeal is preferred by the defendants who succeeded in the Trial Court but lost in the lower appellate court, challenging the judgment and decree of the lower appellate court in A.S. No.37 of 1993 reversing the judgment and decree of the Trial Court in O.S. No.92 of 1992.

2. The case of the plaintiff, in short, is as under:

i. The first and second schedule properties which are adjacent to each other originally belonged to his parents namely Chockalingam Pillai and Muppidathiammal who bequeathed the same to him by way of a registered will dated 09.02.1964 and in the said will, the plaint schedule properties were described as fifth item to the second schedule. The northern boundary of the suit scheduled properties belongs to Chellammal and Madasamy Pillai who are the predecessors-in-title to the appellants and the southern boundary is a street. The plaintiffs father dug a well in the first schedule property in the year 1965 and after his demise, the plaintiff enjoyed the same till 26.02.1961.

ii. The property in the third schedule to the plaint belongs to Madasamy Pillai whose properties were brought to sale in E.P. No.152 of 1964 and that was bought by Muppidathi Pillai, who in turn, gifted the property measuring 15 cc north-south and 8 cc east-west by way of a gift deed 13.01.1969 to the first defendant and in the middle of the said third schedule property, there is a lane measuring 1 cc east-west and 7 cc north-south and the defendants/appellants are not entitled to have more than what they were given under the gift deed. While so, the defendants/appellants trespassed into the plaint first schedule property and closed the well and also constructed a wall measuring 1 and hence, the plaintiff filed the suit for:

a. declaration that the plaint first schedule property is his absolute property;

b. recovery of possession of the same from the defendants/appellants and

c. mandatory injunction directing the defendants/appellants to remove the debris dumped into the well which was thus closed by them.

3. Resisting the case of the plaintiff, the defendants filed a written statement and also a sketch of the suit properties. According to them, the sketch of the suit properties filed by the plaintiff is not correct; their predecessor-in-title Madasami Pillai purchased the suit properties under a Sale Deed dated 03.01.1952 marked as Ex.B.3 of which the plaint first schedule property is also a part and in that sale deed, there is a specific mention of the well. It is the specific case of the defendants that when the plaintiff had admitted their ownership on 25.09.1972, he cannot file a suit in respect of the same property claiming declaration of title. The defendants have also disputed the claim of the plaintiff that his father dug the well in the suit A schedule property. It is their contention that they are the owners of the plaint A schedule property as per Ex.B.3, sale deed and as such, the plaintiff cannot claim ownership of the same.

4. The Trial Court, on an analysis of the oral and documentary evidence, framed the following issues for consideration:

a. whether the plaintiff is entitled to declaration and recover of possession of plaint first schedule property?

b. whether the plaintiff is entitled to mandatory injunction as prayed for? and

c. To what relief the plaintiff is entitled to?

and after answering the first two questions against the plaintiff, the Trial Court dismissed the suit. Against this judgment of the Trial Court, the plaintiff filed an appeal. In the appeal, the lower appellate court reversed the judgment of the Trial Court against which this appeal has been filed by the defendants.

5. On 27.04.1995, this Court admitted the Second Appeal on the following substantial questions of law:

a. Whether the lower appellate court erred in believing and acting Ex.A.2 when it was not proved in accordance with law?

b. Whether the lower appellate court erred in decreeing the suit for mandatory injunction without consid