1. Earlier one Mr.C.Prabakaran, the learned counsel filed vakalat for the caveator. Subsequently, he withdrew his appearance. Hence, by the order dated 20.02.2013, this court directed the office to print the name of the respondent in the cause list. Despite printing the name of the respondent, no one appeared today. Hence, the matter has been taken up for hearing at the request of the learned counsel for the appellants.

2. This second appeal is focussed by the defendants' inveighing the judgement and decree dated 30.07.2011 passed by the learned Subordinate Judge, Tirutanni in A.S.No.15 of 2011 in reversing the judgment and decree dated 11.08.2006 passed by the learned District Munsif, Pallipet in O.S.No.510 of 2001.

3. The parties, for thesake of convenience, are referred to here under according to their litigative status and ranking before the trial Court.

4. Heard the learned counsel for the appellant.

5. A summation and summarisation of the germane facts absolutely necessary for the disposal of this second appeal would run thus:

a. The respondent/plaintiff filed the suit seeking the following reliefs:

- to declare the plaintiff's right, title and interest to the suit properties.

- to grant permanent injunction restraining the defendants their men and agents from interfering with the plaintiff's peaceful possession and enjoyment of the suit properties and – for costs.

(extracted as such) in respect of the following schedule of property In Tiruvellore District, in Pallipet Taluk, in Konasamudram village accounts:-

6. together with 5 H.P. Electric Motor pumpset; shed; bore well; together with C.S.No.54.

(extracted as such)

mainly contending that the defendants are unnecessarily trying to meddle with the schedule of properties.

Accordingly, he sought for an injunction.

b. Per contra, D1 and D2 filed the written statement and it was adopted by the other defendants, the pith and marrow of the defence would run thus:

As per the partition deed Ex.B1 dated 30.09.1982, D1 and D2 are entitled to use the pattai, which is situated in the suit property and also they are entitled to take water from the well situated in S.No.157/11.

Accordingly, they prayed for the dismissal of the suit.

c. Whereupon issues were framed by the trial court.

d. Up went the trial, during which, on the plaintiffs' side P.Ws.1 to 3 were examined and Exs.A1 to A10 were marked. On the defendants' side, D.Ws 1 to 3 were examined and Exs.B1 and D2 were marked.

e. Ultimately, the trial court decreed the suit partly by passing the following decree, the operative portion of it is extracted here under for ready reference:

1. That the suit be and the same is hereby decreed; that the right, title and interest of the plaintiff to the suit property is declared.

2. That the defendants be and the same are hereby restrained by means of permanent injunction from interfering with the peaceful possession and enjoyment of the plaintiff to the suit properties, except the right of way granted to the defendants 1 and 2 in the registered partition deed under Ex.B1 and

3. That both parties do bear their own costs.

(extracted as such)

f. Challenging and impugning the judgment and decree of the trial court, the plaintiff preferred appeal; whereupon, the first appellate court set aside the judgment and decree of the trial court and virtually granted full injunction and the decree of the first appellate court is extracted here under :

1. That the appeal be and the same is hereby allowed.

2. That the observation of the trial court's judgment and decree dated 11.08.2006 passed in O.S.No.510 of 2011 with regard to the findings in respect of the right of passage in item No.2 of the suit property alone is hereby set aside.

3. That the right, title and interest of the plaintiff to the suit property is hereby declared.

4. That the defendants be and are hereby restrained by means of permanent injunction from interfering with peaceful possession and enjoyment of the