The sub division made under the Tamil Nadu Survey and Boundaries Act 1923 is conclusive proof of the correct determination of boundaries unless set aside or modified by a decree of a Civil Court.

1. Challenge in this second appeal is made to the judgment and decree dated 23.08.2000 passed in A.S. No.103/99 on the file of the Sub Court, Bhavani reversing the judgment and decree dated 30.06.1999 passed in O.S. No.364/95 on the file of the Additional District Munsif Court, Bhavani.

2. Parties are referred to as per their rankings in the trial Court.

3. Suit for declaration and permanent injunction.

4. The case of the plaintiffs, in brief, is that the first plaintiff's husband and the father of the plaintiffs 2 to 6 namely Sengodagounder had a brother by name Palaniappagounder. Sengodagounder, Palaniappagounder and their mother Irusayammal partitioned the properties belonging to them, by way of a registered partitioned deed dated 16.12.1966, under which 3.60 acres were allotted to Sengodagounder on the northern side and 3.80 acres were allotted to Palaniappagounder on the southern side in the respective survey fields and 1/2 share in the well, thulai, vari attached to the well were allotted to Sengodagounder and Palaniappagounder. The properties allotted to Sengodagounder are the suit properties and Sengodagounder had been in possession and enjoyment of the suit properties till his death and on his death, they were succeeded to by the plaintiffs, his legal heirs and accordingly, the plaintiffs had been in possession and enjoyment of the suit properties and on 05.04.1973, Palaniappagounder had sold his properties allotted in the partition above referred, to the first defendant and the first defendant had been in possession and enjoyment of the same and the second defendant is the wife of the first defendant and the other defendants are his sons. At the time of re-survey, both properties belonging to the brothers above referred to have been re-surveyed as a single survey field as R.S.No.581 without any sub division and a joint patta was issued in their names and subsequently, the above properties of the brothers have been sub divided and the fourth defendant being a surveyor exercised his influence and accordingly, got the properties sub divided as R.S.No.581/1,2 and 3 in the year 1989 and Sengodagoundagounder was assigned R.S.No.581/1 with lesser extent and at the time of sub division Sengodagounder was no more and the first defendant was assigned R.S.NO.581/3 with more extent than what he is really entitled to and enjoying and accordingly, as per the sub division which is not binding upon the plaintiffs an extent of 0.53 acres of the plaintiffs have been included in R.S.No.581/3 and despite of the said sub division, the plaintiffs continued to enjoy the extent of 0.53 acres absolutely and the defendants taking advantage of the above said sub division effected wrongly and without notice to the plaintiffs, are attempting to encroach into the properties belonging to the plaintiffs to which they are entitled to and hence, the suit for appropriate reliefs.

5. The case of the defendants, in brief, is that the suit is not maintainable either in law or on facts. The plaint plan is not correct. The plaintiffs are not entitled to the suit properties as described in the plaint and not in possession and enjoyment of the same. The plaintiffs had never enjoyed any portion sub divided as R.S.No.581/3 and the said extent covered under the above said survey number had been all along enjoyed by the defendants and the defendants have also prescribed right to the above said extent on account of the long enjoyment by adverse possession and also there is a permanent stone ridge between the properties situated in R.S.No.581/1 and 581/3 and hence, the properties covered under R.S.No.581/3 in the plaint plan belong to the defendants and the plaintiffs are not entitled to the same and it is false to state that the defendants attempted to encroach into the suit properties belonging to the plaintiffs, the properties allotted to Sengodagounder had been shown in red and rose colour in the plan attached along with the written statement and the dis