The burden of proof lies with the plaintiffs to establish their case, and the court should follow established legal principles in assessing the evidence and reaching a decision.

In this second appeal, challenge is made to the judgment and decree dated 31.01.2003 passed in A.S.No.93 of 2002 on the file of the I Additional District Judge-cum-Chief Judicial Magistrate Court, Salem, reversing the judgment and Decree dated 31-07-2002 passed in O.S.No.877 of 1995 on the file of the Principal District Munsif Court, Salem.

2. The parties are referred to as per the rankings in the trial court.

3. Suit for permanent injunction.

4. The case of the plaintiffs in brief is that the they are the representatives of the residents of Ceylon Refugees Colony, of Singapuram village, Salem Taluk and all of them are having common interest in the subject matter of the suit and hence laying the suit in a representative capacity and the suit property originally belonged to Annakodi ammal, W/o, Palani Muthu Padayachi and they had no issues and Palani Muthu Padayachi married a second wife and through her begot the defendants 1 and 3 and during her life time, Annakodi ammal executed a registered power of attorney in respect of the suit property to one T.Jeyaraman, S/o, Thirumalai samy and on the basis of same, T.Jeyaraman plotted out the suit property as mentioned in the plaint plan and sold the same to the plaintiffs and the other refugees who had migrated to India and accordingly, the Government had extended concession to the plaintiffs from the payment of stamp duty for the purchase of the plots and accordingly 138 plots had been purchased by the plaintiffs and others under various sale deeds and some had constructed thatched sheds in the plots and while so, the defendants without any manner of right, started interfering with the possession and enjoyment of the plaintiffs in respect of the suit property and left with no other alternative, according to the plaintiffs, they have been necessitated to lay the suit for appropriate reliefs.

5. The case of the defendants in brief is that the suit laid by the plaintiffs is not maintainable either in law or on facts. It is false to state that the plaintiffs have common interest in the subject matter of the suit and hence entitled to file the suit in a representative capacity. The suit laid by the plaintiffs in the representative capacity is not maintainable. It is true that the suit property belonged to Annakodi ammal and it is true that Palani Muthu Padayachi married the second wife and through the second wife, he begot six daughters and one son and not the defendants 1 and 3 as alleged in the plaint. Annakodi ammal had no necessity to execute the power of attorney in favour of Jeyaraman as put forth in the plaint. The case of the plaintiff that she had executed the power of attorney in favour of Jeyaraman is false and it is false to state that he had plotted out the suit property and sold to 138 refugees including the plaintiffs and that some of them had put up thatched sheds in the plots purchased by them. No one is living in the suit property and it is only the defendants, who are enjoying the suit property and it is false to state that the Government had extended concession to the plaintiffs in the purchase of the plots and that the defendants are disturbing their possession and enjoyment. All the documents projected by the plaintiffs are concocted for the purpose of the case and it is only the defendants, who are in possession and enjoyment of the suit property and the suit property had never been in possession and enjoyment of the plaintiffs at any point of time and the plaintiffs have no title to the suit property, possession and enjoyment as claimed in the plaint and it is only the third defendant, who has title to the suit property by virtue of a registered Will dated 29.04.1994 and in possession and enjoyment of the suit property and there is no cause of action for the suit and the suit is liable to be dismissed.

6. In support of the plaintiffs' case, P.Ws.1 to 8 were examined. Exs.A1 to A12 were marked. On the side of the defendants', D.Ws.1 to 3 were examined. Exs.B1