1. This second appeal is directed against the decree of the lower appellate court, namely the Court of Principal District Judge, Erode dated 12.03.2008 made in A.S.No.89 of 2007 confirming the decree passed by the trial court, namely the court of District Munsif cum Judicial Magistrate, Perundurai dated 21.12.2006 made in O.S.No.174 of 2004 dismissing the said suit.

2. The suit was filed by the appellant herein, originally on the file of First Additional Subordinate Jude, Erode as O.S.No.90 of 2002 praying for: 1) a declaration that the re-survey conducted by the respondents 1 and 2 in respect of the suit property was invalid, improper and not binding upon the appellant/plaintiff for want of service of notices under Sections 9 and 10 of the Tamil Nadu Survey and Boundaries Act, 1923; 2) a mandatory injunction directing restoration of the boundaries of the suit land so that the appellant/plaintiff would get a total extent of 7.2 acres purchased by her in 1965; 3) a declaration that the appellant/plaintiff is entitled to an extent of 7.22 acres in the suit survey fields and 4) a permanent injunction restraining the respondents 3 to 6 from trespassing into any portion of the suit property and from causing any obstruction for the use of the east-west pathway running on the northern portion of the suit land. Subsequently, the suit came to be transferred on the point of jurisdiction to the court of District Munsif cum Judicial Magistrate, Perundurai and renumbered as O.S.No.174 of 2004.

3. The above said prayer was made on the basis of the plaint averments that the appellant/plaintiff purchased 7.02 acres comprised in old survey No.1131 and 0.20 acres comprised in old survey No.1152/B of Thenmugam Vellode village, Perundurai Taluk, Erode District; that the entire extent of 7.22 acres comprised in those survey numbers form a single block; that after having purchased the same, she put up a cattle shed on the north-eastern corner of the said land and formed an east-west pathway in the northern portion of the suit land to reach the cattle shed from the main road running on the west of the suit land; that a month prior to the filing of the suit, the third respondent made an attempt to obstruct the appellant/plaintiff from taking her cattle along the east-west pathway claiming that the said pathway and a portion of the suit land on the north-western portion had been tagged with the survey Nos.1130 and 1128 lying on the north of the suit land and that on her taking a survey measurement, she found that an extent of 7.00 acres alone was available with her and the said anomaly occurred due to the shifting of the northern boundary line towards south and also the western boundary line towards further west. Contending further that in the re-survey she was granted patta for R.S.No.1144 comprising an extent of 2.09.0 hectares equivalent to 7.13 acres, which included a portion encroached by the appellant/plaintiff in the Highway poramboke lying on the west of the suit land; that if the encroached portion of the highway poramboke was deducted, the actual extent available to her in the suit land would be only 7.00 acres; that the same was the result of the wrong fixation of the northern and western boundary lines during the re-survey that took place without serving notices on the appellant/plaintiff under Sections 9 and 10 of the Tamil Nadu Survey and Boundaries Act, 1923 and that hence she was constrained to approach the trial court with the suit for the reliefs stated supra, she had prayed for the above said reliefs in the suit.

4. The official respondents, namely respondents 1 and 2/defendants 1 and 2, did not contest the suit and they remained ex-parte. The private respondents, namely respondents 3 to 6/defendants 3 to 6 alone contested the suit based on the averments made in the written statement of the third respondent/third defendant, which was adopted by the respondents 4 to 6/defendants 4 to 6. According to them, the land of the a