The first defendant in O.S.No.72 of 2008 on the file of the Distirct Munsif Court, Pallipattu, is the appellant, and respondents 1 and 2 herein were the plaintiffs before the trial Court. The plaintiffs filed a suit for permanent injunction, restraining the first defendant from interfering with the possession and enjoyment of the suit schedule property and the second defendant/the Tahsildar, Pallipattu, from transferring the patta in favour of the first defendant in respect of the suit property. The suit was decreed by judgment and decree dated 20.04.2010, passed in O.S.No.72 of 2008 and on appeal, learned Subordinate Judge, Tirutani, confirmed the same by judgment and decree dated 29.07.2011, passed in A.S.No.42 of 2010. Aggrieved by the same, this second appeal has been filed by the first defendant / appellant herein.

2. The case of the plaintiffs/respondents 1 and 2 is as follows:

Plaintiffs 1 and 2 are brothers and sons of one P.Nagabushanam. The plaintiffs' grandfather P.Doraisamy Chetty, after acquiring the suit schedule property, continued to be in possession and enjoyment of the same, and after his death, his sons, namely, P.Nagabushanam/father of plaintiffs and P.Venkatarathinam succeeded him and they continued to be in possession and, to that effect, patta also stood transferred in the names of P.Nagabushanam and P.Venkatarathinam. Whileso, after the marriage of these plaintiffs, they orally partitioned the properties and thereafter, they are in possession and enjoyment of the suit schedule property. It is further stated in the plaint that since the first respondent, who is a stranger and a resident of Bangalore, is also attempting to transfer the patta in his name with the help of the Tahsildar, Pallipattu, the plaintiff filed the suit for permanent injunction against the defendants from interfering with the suit property and also not to transfer the patta in favour of the first defendant.

3. The first defendant / appellant, in his written statement, averred that the suit property and other properties are ancestral in nature and it originally belonged to one Guruvaiah Chetty and Chinnavenkatappa Chetty, who are brothers. Guruvaiah Chetty died in the year 1966, leaving behind his three sons, namely, P.Doraisamy Chetty / grandfather of plaintiffs, P.Thangavelu Chetty and P.Subramania Chetty / first defendant. Whileso, the grandfather of the plaintiffs, namely, P.Doraisamy Chetty, filed a civil suit for partition in O.S.No.82 of 1979 on the file of the Sub Court, Kancheepuram, against his second son-P.Thangavelu Chetty and third son/first defendant, and also impleading Kovaiah Chetty and P.Srinivasa Chetty, who are the sons of his brother(Chinnavenkatappa). While the suit was pending, the said P.Doraisamy Chetty died and thereafter, the father of plaintiffs/Nagabushanam and all the legal heirs of Doraisamy Chetty were brought on record as parties to the suit. Similarly, after the death of Thangavelu Chetty, legal heirs of the said Thangavelu Chetty were also brought on record as defendants in the above said suit. The trial Court decreed the suit as prayed for vide judgment and decree dated 24.11.1993, passed in O.S.No.82 of 1979. Thereafter, though the first defendant and the legal heirs of P.Thangavelu Chetty preferred an appeal before this Court in A.S.No.426/1995, while the matter was pending, the issue was compromised among the parties and thereafter, a compromise decree was passed by this Court on 11.04.2005. In terms of the said compromise decree, the first defendant was allotted 87 cents (eastern side) out of 2.60 acres in the suit first item of S.No.289/14 and in S.No.308/1, he was allotted 55 cents (eastern side), out of 1.10 acres in S.No.308/1 and again, he was alloted the full extent of 88 cents in S.No.306/5, which is third suit item. As per the said compromise decree, the father of the plaintiffs/Mr.P.Nagabhusanam and other legal heirs of P.Doraisamy Chetty were allotted with 87 cen