The central legal point established in the judgment is the importance of correctly interpreting legal notifications and the necessity for parties to challenge such declarations in a timely manner.

1. One K.S.R.Sriranga Raja (plaintiff No.1) along with his two nephews, viz., K.J.Ravichandra Raja (plaintiff No.2) and K.J.Srirangaperumal Raja (plaintiff No.3) filed a suit in O.S.No.428 of 1995 on the file of Additional District Munsif Court, Srivilliputhur on 11.10.1995 (hereinafter referred to as 'trial court' for the sake of convenience and clarity).

2. In the aforesaid suit in the trial court, Rajapalayam Municipality through its Commissioner was arrayed as defendant No.1. Two other individuals, namely, S.M.Ravi Raja and S.M.Regupathy Raja have been arrayed as defendants 2 and 3 respectively. To be noted, first defendant Rajapalayam Municipality alone contested the suit and carried the matter in appeal. Defendants 2 and 3, I am informed, remained ex parte throughout in the courts below.

3. Plaint schedule property is land admeasuring 1,44,062 square feet (3 acres and 30 cents) comprised in Town Survey Nos.2, 3, 4 and 5 in Kadambangulam village in Rajapalayam Sub Registration, Kamarajar Registration District including a workshop situate thereon in door No.551. To be noted, T.S.Nos.2, 3 and 4 are situate in Block No.17 and T.S.No.5 is situate in Block No.18. Both sides before me agree that aforesaid property has been correctly described in the Advocate Commissioner's sketch, Ex.C.2. Also to be noted, there was no objection to the Commissioner's report and sketch in the courts below. Therefore, for better appreciation of this judgment, I deem it appropriate to scan and reproduce Advocate Commissioner's sketch (C2). I do so and the same is as follows:

“IMAGE”

4. Both sides before me agree that plaint schedule property described above is what has been described as ABCD in the Advocate Commissioner's sketch supra. For the sake of convenience and clarity, this plaint schedule property spread over land extent of 3 acres and 30 cents (together with superstructure in the form of a workshop thereon) shall henceforth be referred to as 'suit property'.

5. Prayer in the aforesaid suit in the trial court was for a permanent injunction to restrain the first defendant Rajapalayam Municipality from interfering with plaintiff's peaceful possession and enjoyment of suit property. I have already mentioned that defendants 2 and 3 remained ex parte throughout in the courts below. Also to be noted, no relief was claimed against defendants 2 and 3.

6. However, there are errors in this regard in the trial court and first appellate court. In trial court, defendant No.1 has been shown to have appeared through a counsel Mr.K.Kalidass and defendant No.1 has also been shown to have remained ex parte. This is obviously incorrect. In the first appellate court, the name has been mis-spelt. When this was pointed out, both counsel before me submitted that respondents 3 and 4 / defendants 2 and 3 remained ex parte throughout in the courts below and submitted on instructions that this is the correct position.

7. Aforesaid three plaintiffs laid above mentioned suit claiming that they are owners of the suit property, having purchased the same under four different sale deeds, which have been marked as Exs.A.1 to A.4 in the trial court. It is the further case of plaintiffs that first defendant Rajapalayam Municipality is interfering with their possession inter-alia by insisting that the compound wall in the suit property should be removed. It is also plaintiffs' say that notice for removal of compound wall was issued by Sivakasi Sub Collector. It is the specific case of the plaintiffs that Rajapalayam Municipality proposed to form a scheme road across the suit property and that is the basis for the Municipality's interference with suit property and cause of action for plaintiffs to file the suit.

8. Municipality through its Commissioner entered appearance and filed a written statement clearly contending that the property shown as EFGH in the plaint plan and the road east of GH belongs to Municipality. It was also the specific case of the Municipality that it