1. The judgment and decree dated 25.1.2000 and made in A.S.No.26 of 1999 on the file of the learned Subordinate Judge, Madhuranthagam, reversing the judgment and decree dated 29.1.1999 partly and made in O.S.No.262 of 1995 on the file of the learned District Munsif, Madhuranthagam have been challenged in this Memorandum of Second Appeal.

2. The Cross-Objection has been filed by the Cross-Objector/plaintiff, challenging the dismissed portion of the suit in respect of the prayer of injunction.

3. The appellant herein is the defendant in the suit in O.S.No.262 of 1995 whereas the plaintiff is the respondent herein. It appears that during the pendency of the Second Appeal, the respondent/ plaintiff Dr.Kesavachariyalu had passed away. Therefore, the respondents 2 to 4 have been brought on record as the legal representatives of the deceased sole respondent/plaintiff vide the order of Court dated 6.8.2013 and made in CMP No.707 of 2009.

4. For the sake of convenience and easy reference, the appellant as well as the respondents may hereinafter be referred to as the plaintiffs and the defendant wherever the context so require.

5. In so far as this appeal is concerned, the following crucial question arises for the consideration of this Court:-

“Which one will prevail over ? Whether possessory title or documentary title?”

6. Conspectus of facts:- According to the deceased plaintiff Dr.Kesavachariyalu, he is the absolute and exclusive owner of the schedule mentioned properties.

7. The suit property has been described in the plaint schedule in two items:-

“Item No.1 – Punja land comprised in Survey No.197/8B measuring 0.41 cents;

Item No.2 – Punja land comprised in Survey No.202/7A measuring 0.58 cents situate at Madhuranthagam Taluk and Firka, No.134, Silavattam Village, within the following four boundaries:-

(i) East by Ellappa Gounder Punja Land;

(ii) West by Devaraja Gounder Punja Land;

(iii) North by Arumugha Gounder (Plaintiff's Vendor's Vendor);

(iv) South by Krishnasami Iyyangar Punja Land.”

8. The deceased plaintiff has stated that he was enjoying the schedule mentioned properties by establishing a school under the name and style of 'Saraswathi Vidyalaya'. He had purchased the properties described in Item Nos.1 and 2 under a registered Sale Deed Ex.A-1 dated 6.10.1988 from one Kanniyappan and others. While scribing the Sale Deed the Survey Number of item No.2 was inadvertently written as Survey No.202/1A instead of Survey No.202/7A. However, the boundaries specified in the Sale Deed is relating to Survey No.202/7A. On account of this reason, a Rectification Deed was executed and registered on 12.5.1995 (Ex.A-2).

9. After the purchase, the deceased plaintiff had constructed a school building in the schedule mentioned properties.

10. There was an enquiry conducted by Madhuranthagam Tahsildar in respect of the schedule mentioned properties based on the petition submitted by the defendant. In that enquiry, the plaintiff's title was affirmed by the Tahsildar, and the defendant has therefore no right or title over the schedule mentioned properties. Notwithstanding this, he had been attempting to question the title of the plaintiff and causing disturbance to the peaceful possession of the plaintiff from January 1995.

11. That on 3.7.1995, the defendant had made an attempt to plough the vacant land situate in and around the school premises, however, it was successfully prevented by the plaintiff. Hence, the plaintiff is constrained to file the suit for declaration and consequential relief of permanent injunction.

12. The defendant, while refuting the averments of the plaint, has contended that she is the adjacent owner to the plaintiff’s Saraswathi Vidyalaya School, and that she had been enjoying the suit land for the past 40 years and the Tahisildar, Madhuranthagam had also issued patta, chitta and adangal in her favour in respect of the suit land after verifying the ‘A’ Register.

13. Originally, the plaintiff had obtained an ord