V.M. Velumani, J.

1. This Second Appeal has been filed against the judgment and decree dated 23.01.2003 made in A.S. No. 15 of 2002 on the file of the Additional Subordinate Court, Dindigul, reversing the Judgment and decree dated 06.07.2000, made in O.S. No. 772 of 1998 on the file of the II Additional District Munsif Court, Dindigul.

2. The appellant is the plaintiff, who succeeded in the Trial Court, but lost in the first appellate Court. The respondent is the defendant.

3. Facts of the case:-

(i) The appellant filed suit in O.S. No. 772 of 1998, before the II Additional District Munsif Court, Dindigul, for declaration and permanent injunction restraining the respondent from interfering with his peaceful possession and enjoyment of the suit property.

(ii) According to the appellant, the property originally belonged to one Vaiyapuri. He owned 5 acres 42 cents in S. No. 362 apart from other properties. After his death, his four sons, viz., Palaniyandi, Aandi, Murugan and Subban partitioned all the properties orally including the property measuring 5 acres 42 cents in S. No. 362. His first son Palaniyandi was allotted 90 cents, Aandi and Murugan were allotted 1 acre 35 cents each, and Subban was allotted 1 acre 80 cents in S. No. 362 apart from other properties in other survey numbers. After the death of Palaniyandi, his three sons, viz., Subban, Vaiyapuri and Shanmugam partitioned orally all the properties allotted to Palaniyandi and 90 cents in S. No. 362 was allotted to the share of second son Vaiyapuri along with other properties. The other two sons viz., Subban and Shanmugam were allotted properties in other survey numbers.

(iii) One Chandra Nadar purchased larger extent of 2 acres 70 cents by the Deed of Sale, dated 13.10.1939, namely, 1 acre 35 cents each from Aandi and Murugan, sons of senior Vaiyapuri, the original owner.

(iv) After the death of Chandra Nadar, the appellant purchased 1 acre 60 cents in S. No. 362/1, by the Deed of Sale, dated 14.05.1970 from Lakshmanan, S/o Chandra Nadar. The appellant also purchased further extent of 90 cents from one Perumal Pillai, by the Deed of Sale, dated 04.08.1976. The said Perumal Pillai purchased the said properties from one Vaiyapuri [Grandson of senior Vaiyapuri, the original owner], who is the paternal uncle of the respondent.

(v) From the date of purchase, the appellant is in possession and enjoyment of the suit property by paying kist and carrying on poultry business. He suffered loss in poultry farm business and therefore, he constructed shops in a portion of the building and rented out the same to the Mosaics Company and others. In a portion of the property, he dug a borewell and obtained electricity connection in N.S. Nos. 605 and 651 and carrying on agricultural activities.

(vi) The respondent taking advantage of the fact that patta still stands in his ancestor's name and not changed in the name of the appellant, tried to interfere with the peaceful possession and enjoyment of the appellant. Hence, the appellant has filed the suit for the relief stated above.

(vii) The respondent filed written statement and denied various averments made in the plaint. He admitted the Deed of Sale, dated 13.10.1939, measuring 2 acres 70 cents in favour of Chandra Nadar by Aandi and Murugan [Paternal Grandfather of the respondent]. He disputed the sale of 90 cents, dated 13.12.1975 by Vaiyapuri, Paternal Uncle of respondent to Perumal Pillai and subsequently, by the Deed of Sale, dated 04.08.1976 to the appellant by Perumal Pillai.

(viii) According to the respondent, in the suit property, the respondent's father – Subban, Paternal Uncles – Vaiyapuri and Shanmugam each were allotted 45 cents. His one of the Paternal Uncle Shanmugam sold his 45 cents to his father-in-law - Silambakudumban. The respondent's father – Subban purchased the said 45 cents from Silambakudumban 35 years back. The respondent's father, thus, became owner of 90 cents. Therefore, the Deed of Sale, dated 13.12.1975 i