The judgment emphasizes the importance of evidence in establishing title and possession in property disputes, and the application of Section 52 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872 in accepting genuine documents.

1. This second appeal has been filed against the judgment and decree, dated 26.10.2009, made in A.S.No.86 of 2008, on the file of the Subordinate Court, Perambalur, confirming the judgment and decree, dated 28.11.2007, made in O.S.No.90 of 2000, on the file of the District Munsif Court, Perambalur.

2. The defendant in the suit, in O.S.No.90 of 2000, is the appellant in the present second appeal. The plaintiff in the said suit is the respondent herein.

3. The suit, in O.S.No.90 of 2000, had been filed by the plaintiff praying for a decree to declare the plaintiffs title in respect of the suit property and for the relief of permanent injunction restraining the defendant, his men, agents and servants from interfering with the plaintiffs peaceful possession and enjoyment of the suit properties, and for costs.

4. The plaintiff had stated that he is the owner of the suit property. His father had purchased the suit property, under a sale deed, dated 24.6.1974, registered as Document No.2128/74, from one Abdul Salam and three others. The suit property was given to the plaintiff, by way of a family partition. From the date of its purchase the suit property has been in the possession and enjoyment of the plaintiff’s father, Palanivel Gounder and thereafter, with the plaintiff.

5. The plaintiff has been paying the kist in respect of the suit property and the UDR patta has also been issued in his name, for the fasli 1396. By the long possession and enjoyment, the plaintiff had also perfected title in respect of the suit property, by prescription. In the patta pass book issued for the suit property, the name of the plaintiff has been entered. The plaintiff has been cultivating sugarcane, paddy and tapioca in the suit land. While so, the defendant, who is a stranger to the suit property started to interfere with the plaintiffs peaceful possession and enjoyment of the suit property. In such circumstances, the plaintiff had filed the suit, in O.S.No.90 of 2000, on the file of the District Munsif Court, Perambalur.

6. In the written statement filed on behalf of the defendant it had been stated that the sale deed, dated 24.6.1974, is a forged document. The vendors of the sale deed, namely, Abdul Salam and three others, had no right or title in respect of the suit property. It is false to state that the suit property is in possession and enjoyment of the plaintiff. In fact, the defendant has grown paddy crops in the suit property. The suit property, bearing S.No.164/1, belongs to the defendant’s family. The defendant’s grand father Maniara Rama Moopan had purchased 3.52 cents, on the southern side of the Vari, on 27.6.1936, from Alliammal, for a sum of Rs.600/-. The other suit properties are ancestral properties of the defendant’s family.

7. It has also been stated that, for the past 75 years the defendants family had been enjoying the suit property. Patta had also been given to the defendant’s father, Maniara Duraisamy, in Patta No.407. After the demise of Maniara Rama Moopan, his three sons had divided the property amongst themselves. The eastern portion of the property had been allotted to Perumal, the middle portion had been allotted to Thiruman and the western portion had been allotted to the defendants father Duraisamy. After the said partition each of the share holders have been enjoying their respective shares.

8. While so, Thiruman had sold the share of 1 acre and 96 cents to the defendant’s father, on 12.9.1961, for a sum of Rs.3,000/-. Subsequent to the said sale the defendant’s father has been owning the property, having an extent of 3 acres and 92 cents. 1 acre and 96 cents on the eastern side is the share of Perumal. Both of them have been enjoying their respective shares. It has also been stated that the legal heirs of Perumal are necessary parties to the suit. Since, the suit filed by the plaintiff is not maintainable, it is liable to be dismissed.

9. In view of the averments made on behalf of the plaintiff, as w