Entitlement to a decree for permanent injunction based on possession.

1. The plaintiff, who lost the case before the Lower Appellate Court has filed the Second Appeal before this Court. The plaintiff is the first appellant herein. The defendant is the respondent herein. Appellants 2 to 7 are the legal heirs of the first appellant. For the sake of convenience the parties will be hereinafter referred to as per their rank in the suit.

2. The sum and substance of the plaint averments are as follows.-

(a) The plaintiff is in possession and enjoyment of the suit schedule property for more than twenty years and patta stands in the name of the plaintiff. The Special Tahsildar also under the "Nila Udamai Membattu Thittam" Mayiladuthurai, in recognition of his possession, granted patta in the plaintiff's name on 23.09.1987. Though the suit land is classified as Punja and assessed, the plaintiff has constructed a thatched house and formerly resided there. Thereafter, he has shifted his residence westwards and is running a bucket shop in the suit shop building. He is also paying the house tax to the Panchayat Board. The plaintiff is thus in undisputed possession and enjoyment of the suit property, for more than 12 years as against the prescribed statutory period. Hence, the plaintiff is entitled to enjoy the possession of the suit property.

(b) The defendant's father has got Nanja lands, north of the suit property and he wanted the suit land to be given to him by the plaintiff. He could not purchase the suit property since the plaintiff refused. Hence, the defendant's father one Pazhanivel filed a suit in O.S.No.84 of 1982 on the file of the Additional District Munsif Court, Mayiladuthurai, against the plaintiff for permanent injunction, as if, he was in possession and enjoyment of the suit property. The said suit was dismissed against the defendant's father. As against the dismissal, he preferred an appeal before the Additional Subordinate Judge, Mayiladuthurai in A.S.No.54 of 1983 and the Additional District Munsiff Court, Mayiladuthurai, also confirmed the decree passed in O.S.No.84 of 1982 and the same was also dismissed.

(c) While being so, the defendant, who is the son of the said Pazhanivel, is now laying a claim over the suit property. The defendant wanted the plaintiff to convey the suit schedule property in favour of him and the same was refused by the plaintiff. Aggrieved over the same, the defendant attempted to enter into the suit property forcibly on 03.06.1990 and the same was prevented by the plaintiff. Hence, the plaintiff filed the suit for permanent injunction restraining the defendant from interfering with the plaintiff's peaceful possession and enjoyment of the suit property.

3. The sum and substance of the written statement averments are as follows:-

(a) The defendant denied the entire allegations made in the plaint. Initially, the suit schedule property belongs to one Krishna Rao and his brother Raghunatha Rao. The defendant's grand father enjoyed the northern side of the property by way of lease and thereafter, the same was conveyed to the defendant's father and he was enjoying the suit property by way of lease. Accordingly, the defendant purchased 2 1/2 cents of the suit schedule property from Ramachandra Rao's wife Kangubai, by a registered Sale Deed, dated 17.12.1986. Thereafter, the defendant became the owner of the suit schedule property of 2 1/2 cents and enjoyed the suit property without any disturbance. However, suppressing the earlier facts, the plaintiff approached the Revenue Authorities under the "Nila Udamai Membattu Thittam" Mayiladuthurai and obtained patta. Even assuming that the patta stands in his name, the plaintiff challenged the first defendant's right since the defendant purchased the property for valuable consideration from the legal heirs of the first appellant. While being so, the plaintiff encroached a portion of the suit property and running betelnet shop in the suit property and the admission made by the defendant; that the plaintiff enjoyed the suit p