Boundaries prevail over measurement in property disputes.

1. This Appeal is directed against the judgment and decree passed by the First Appellate Court in A.S.No.30 of 2003 dated 20.10.2003 in reversing the judgment of the trial Court in decreeing the suit in favour of the plaintiff in O.S.No.476 of 1996 dated 10.03.2003.

2. The appellant was the plaintiff and the respondents were the defendants before the trial Court.

3. The brief facts of the plaintiff's case before the trial Court would be thus:

The plaintiff is in possession of the suit property by virtue of house site patta given to him on 20.12.1992 by the Tahsildar, Mettur. The defendants are husband and wife. The defendants demanded the plaintiff to sell the suit property to them but the plaintiff refused to sell the same. Due to which, there arose enmity between them. The defendants came to the suit property on 30.11.1998 and tried to dig foundation in the suit property but the same was prevented. Hence, the suit was filed for permanent injunction restraining the defendants and their men from in any way unlawfully digging the foundation in the suit property and for costs.

4. The contentions of the 2nd defendant raised in the written statement filed by him and adopted by the 1st defendant are as follows:

It is false to state that the suit property belongs to the plaintiff by way of house site patta given to him on 20.12.1992 by the Tahsildar, Mettur. The property in village natham survey No.136/B to the extent of 2805 sq.ft. belonged to one Parvathiammal and she executed a registered settlement deed dated 15.12.1980 to her daughter-in-law namely Seethalakshmi and handed over possession. From the date of settlement, the said Seethalakshmi was the absolute owner and was in possession of the above property. The 2nd defendant purchased the above property from the said Seethalakshmi on 30.1.1993 under a registered sale deed to an extent of 2805 sq.ft. (about 6 ½ cents) in village natham S.No.193 for valuable consideration and obtained possession. From the date of purchase, the defendants are in possession and enjoyment of the above property. The thatched house with pulakkadai, thalakkadai is in exclusive possession and enjoyment of the 2nd defendant. The 2nd defendant has planted coconut sapling in her portion. The plaintiff asked the 2nd defendant to sell her property to them for which she refused. So there is an enmity between the plaintiff and the defendants. The plaintiff unlawfully tried to pull away the coconut saplings planted by the 2nd defendant. It is false to say that the defendants are making construction work in the suit property. Actually, there is no new construction work made by the 2nd defendant. On misrepresentation and fraud, the plaintiff obtained some documents from the Revenue Officials. The 2nd defendant is the owner and in possession of the portion of the alleged suit property. The extent, measurement and boundary mentioned in the suit property are not correct. There is no cause of action for the suit. The alleged attempt of encroachment on 30.11.1998 is false. The suit is not valued properly for the purpose of court fee and jurisdiction. Bare injunction suit is not maintainable against the real owner. The suit may be dismissed with costs.

5. On the pleadings of both sides, the trial Court had framed necessary issues and entered trial. After appraising the evidence adduced before it on either side, it had decreed the suit and granted a decree for permanent injunction in favour of the plaintiff as prayed for. Aggrieved defendants filed an appeal before the First Appellate Court. The first appellate Court heard the arguments of both parties and had come to the conclusion of allowing the appeal and thereby dismissed the suit filed by the plaintiff before the lower Court.

6. The plaintiff, aggrieved by the judgment and decree by the first Appellate Court, had filed the present appeal before this Court.

7. At the time of admission of this appeal, the following substantial questions of law were fo