T. Mathivanan, J.

1. This Memorandum of Second Appeal has been directed against the Judgment and Decree dated 22.7.2003 and made in the Appeal in A.S. No. 75 of 1999 on the file of the learned Additional District Judge (Fast Track Court No. II), Kancheepuram, confirming the Judgment and Decree dated 29.4.1989 and made in the Suit in O.S. No. 1088 of 1996 on the file of the learned Additional District Munsif, Kancheepuram.

2. The appellants herein are the plaintiffs in the suit. The plaintiffs 2 to 4 are the sons of the first plaintiff. The plaintiffs 5 and 6 were impleaded as the legal heirs of the first plaintiff vide order dated 3.6.2002 passed in I.A. No. 165 of 2002. The respondent is the defendant.

3. The case of the plaintiffs is that, originally, the suit property was belonged to one Subbaraya Udayar, son of Pachaiyappa Udayar. Thereafter, the property was subjected to several transactions. One Valliammanl, wife of Muthumani Udayar had executed a Streedhana Deed on 11.11.1916 and thereby bequeathed the property in favour of her daughter, Poongavanammal. Subsequently, the said Poongavanammal had borrowed a sum of Rs. 100/- from Nathapettai Co-operative Society after creating a mortgage on 20.6.1923 in respect of the property. Since Poongavanmmal had not discharged the mortgage debt, the property was brought into auction by Nathapettai Co-operative Society. In the said auction, one Nagalingam Mudaliar had participated and purchased the said property as evidenced from the delivery receipt dated 22.2.1927. Therefore, Nagalingam Mudaliar had became the owner of the property.

4. According to the plaintiffs, Poongavanammal had created a mortgage in respect of the property measuring 21 feet x 60 feet. But, while executing delivery receipts in favour of Nagalingam, Nathapettai Co-operative Society had wrongly included the property specified under plaint schedule in addition to the above said extent. It is also the case of the plaintiffs that insofar as the property specified in the plaint is concerned, they have been in possession and enjoyment barring the site measuring 21 feet X 60 feet.

5. The plaintiffs have contended further that on 20.03.1932, the said Nagalingam Mudaliar had sold the property to one Visalakshiammal who is none other than the maternal grand mother of the respondent/defendant. One Ramu Udayar is the son of Visalakshiammal and the respondent/defendant is the son of Ramu Udayar. The plaintiffs have stated that the respondent/defendant has been in possession and enjoyment of the property measuring 21 feet X 60 feet alone and the remaining extent of the property has been in their possession.

6. It is also the further case of the plaintiffs that at the time of natham survey, the Special Tahsilar of Natham Survey had issued a joint patta in the name of the plaintiffs as well as the respondent/defendant on 21.10.1995 vide Patta No. 84. The plaintiffs have also stated that apart from the plaint schedule property, they are also owning the property lying south of the suit property for which also separate house site patta was issued to the plaintiffs under Patta No. 160 on 27.3.1995.

7. That after issuance of joint patta under Patta No. 84, the respondent/defendant had lodged an objection on 10.6.1996 and after due enquiry, the Tahsildar of Natham Survey had cancelled the Joint Patta on 17.6.1996 and issued an individual patta in favour of the respondent/defendant under Form No. VII. Though 30 days was prescribed for filing appeal, the plaintiffs had not filed their appeal within the said period before the appropriate authority. They have contended that on the strength of the order passed by the Special Tahsildar of Natham Survey at Kancheepuram District on 17.6.1996, the respondent/defendant had been making arrangement to interfere with the plaintiffs' possession and enjoyment. Under these circumstances, they came forward with the above suit against the respondent/defendant seeking the relief of permanent injuncti