The plaintiff must establish their title over the property to claim recovery of possession or mandatory injunction, as per the provisions of the Specific Relief Act, 1963.

1. The second appeal has been preferred by the appellants, who are the legal heirs of the original plaintiff, late Kuppusamy Udayar. The suit was filed by the said plaintiff against E.Ayyasamy Udayar, the respondent / defendant, seeking declaration of title of the suit property and consequential permanent injunction restraining the respondent / defendant from interfering with the peaceful possession and enjoyment of the suit schedule property. Subsequently, by way of amendment, the plaintiff has sought a decree for mandatory injunction to demolish the compound wall marked as GH, HI and IJ and the toilet and septic tank shown 'Z' in the Commissioner's plan and the bathroom east of the toilet and to direct the respondent / defendant to deliver vacant possession of the suit property shown as "GHIJ" in the Commissioner's plan to the plaintiff.

2. The trial court, having considered the pleadings, evidence of P.W.1 and P.W.2 and the documents marked on the side of the plaintiff as Ex.A.1 to Ex.A.25 and also the evidence of the respondent / defendant, who was examined as D.W.1 and the documents marked on the side of the respondent / defendant as Ex.B.1 to Ex.B.11 and the Commissioner's Report, Ex.C.1 and the sketch prepared by the Commissioner, Ex.C.2, partly decreed the suit, whereby granted the relief of declaration of title and injunction in respect of 5 cents, out of 9 cents in the suit survey number and so far as 4 cents of land on the Eastern side is concerned, the suit was dismissed. Aggrieved by the Judgment and Decree of the trial Court, appeal was preferred by the plaintiff.

3. The Appellate Court, by its Judgment and Decree, dated 24.09.1999, has confirmed the Judgment and Decree passed by the trial Court and dismissed the appeal preferred by the plaintiff, against which, this Second Appeal has been preferred by the legal heirs of the deceased plaintiff.

4. This Second Appeal was admitted by this Court on the following Substantial Questions of Law :

"1. Whether the Judgments of the courts below restricting the decree to 5 cents out of 9 cents are sustainable in law, even though the plaintiff established his claim to the suit property in entirety ?

2. Whether the Judgments of the Courts below are not vitiated by the court's failure to consider the entire evidence and to apply to the correct principles of law?

3. Whether the findings of the courts below for refusing the decree for mandatory injunction in the absence of evidence are sustainable in law?"

5. Mr.K.Muthukumarasamy, learned counsel appearing for the appellants drew the attention of this Court to the Judgment rendered by the Courts below and also the supporting documents, Ex.A.1 to Ex.A.6. It is seen that Ex.A.1 is the copy of the sale deed, dated 07.02.1925 executed by one Ramayi Ammal in favour of one Muthusamy Udayar in S.No.248/4, near Kodikaal corner, 10 cents and chidambarathu corner, 7 cents, out of the total extent of 50 cents. Subsequently, under Ex.A.2, registered Will, dated 07.11.1945, Muthusamy Udayar bequeathed his properties in favour of one Kathayee Ammal and Pachai Ammal. On a perusal of the Will, it is seen that survey number, extent and other details of the properties are not stated in the Will, however, he has stated that all his properties are bequeathed in favour of Kathayee Ammal and Pachai Ammal under the Will. As per Ex.A.3, Kathayee Ammal and Pachai Ammal jointly executed registered settlement deed in favour of Kuppusamy Udayar , the plaintiff in the suit. Hence, the burden is upon the appellants / plaintiffs, to establish that the plaintiff, Kuppusamy Udayar was entitled to the suit property, an extent of 9 cents of land, by way of settlement deed, Ex.A.3 and that was inherited by the appellants herein as his legal heirs.

6. Learned counsel appearing for the respondent drew the attention of this Court to Ex.A.6, dated 16.07.1961 and submitted that as per the settlement deed, properties were settled by one Kathayee Ammal in favo