P.R. Shivakumar, J.

1. The defendants in the Original Suit are the appellants in the Second Appeal. The respondents 1 and 2 herein/plaintiffs filed the suit in O.S.No.39 of 2006 on the file of the District Munsif Court, Kulithalai against the appellants herein/defendants for the relief of declaration that the plaint 'A' schedule property belonged to them and for recovery of possession of the same after removal of the super structures put up by the appellants herein/defendants.

2. The learned trial Judge decreed the suit and granted the reliefs as sought for by the respondents herein/plaintiffs by a judgment and decree dated 23.07.2009. Challenging the said decree, the appellants herein/defendants preferred an appeal on the file of the learned Subordinate Judge, Kulithalai in A.S.No.15 of 2010. The learned lower Appellate Judge concurred with the finding of the trial Court and dismissed the appeal by a judgment and decree dated 23.12.2010 confirming the decree of the trial Court. As such, the appellants herein/defendants are before this Court challenging the above said decree of the lower Appellate Court dated 23.12.2010 on various grounds set out in the memorandum of grounds of Second Appeal.

3. The case of the respondents herein/plaintiffs is as follows:-

The property described in plaint 'A' schedule originally belonged to the family of one Somasundaram. The said properties and other properties were divided in a family partition and the plaint 'A' schedule property came to the share of S.Mathavan, S/o. Somasundaram. Thereafter, he was in absolute and exclusive possession and enjoyment of the same. The said S.Mathavan, under a sale deed dated 28.06.1985, sold a part of the property to the first respondent herein/first plaintiff for a sum of Rs.6,000/- and thereafter, the first respondent herein/first plaintiff continued to be in possession and enjoyment of the same. The extent of the property purchased by the first respondent herein/first plaintiff measuring an extent of 0.06 acres out of 'A' schedule property forming western part of the same is shown as CDEF in the plaint plan and described as 'B' schedule property in the plaint. One Karuppapillai S/o. Maruthapillai of Lalapettai purchased another part of plaint 'A' schedule property through a sale deed dated 28.06.1985. The second respondent herein/the second plaintiff purchased the same under a sale deed dated 31.03.1997 and right from the date of purchase, she was in possession and enjoyment of the same. The said property purchased by Vellaiammal which forms part of the plaint 'A' schedule property is described in plaint 'C' schedule property and it is shown as ABFE in the plaint plan. Though patta came to be issued in favour of the respondents herein/plaintiffs, the revenue records have been wrongly noted as if 'B' schedule property belongs to the second respondent herein/second plaintiff and 'C' schedule property belonged to the first respondent herein/first plaintiff. Even then there is no dispute between the first respondent herein/first plaintiff and the second respondent herein/second plaintiff and they were in possession and enjoyment of the respective properties purchased by them. To be precise, the second respondent herein/second plaintiff is in possession of the plaint 'C' schedule property. A portion of the plaint 'B' schedule property shown as CDHG in the plaint plan came to be encroached upon by the appellants herein/defendants who owned the residential house 100 feet away from the suit properties. They did so taking advantage of the absence of the respondents herein/plaintiffs. The plaint 'D' schedule property is part and parcel of plaint 'B' schedule property and the remaining part of 'B' schedule property is in exclusive possession of the first respondent herein/first plaintiff. The efforts made by the respondents herein/ plaintiffs to prevent the appellants herein/defendants who have made encroachment by putting up basement in the plaint 'B' schedule