The plaintiff must establish a valid title to the suit property and prove the authenticity of any relevant documents, such as a Will, to support their claim of title.

The second appeals are directed against the Judgment and Decree dated 28.02.2003 passed in A.S.Nos.18 of 2002 & 28 of 2002 on the file of the Additional Subordinate Court, Chengalpattu, confirming the Judgment and Decree dated 31.03.1999 passed in O.S.Nos.59 of 1997 & 60 of 1997 on the file of the District Munsif cum Judicial Magistrate Court, Alandur.

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

3. O.S.No.59 of 1997 has been laid for the relief of Permanent Injunction.

4. The case of the plaintiffs, in brief, is that the suit property belonged to the plaintiffs' ancestors viz., one Chellakkanni Pillai, even prior to 1875 and subsequently, his sons Punniakkodi, Thepperumal and Thiruvengada Pillai were enjoying the same and the first and second, each were enjoying 6 cents and the third was enjoying 5 cents. Thiruvengida Pillai had only one son by name Vasudeva Pillai, who died without heirs and the share of Thiruvengida Pillai was left to the heirs of Ponniakodi Pillai viz., Srinivasa Pillai, Parthasarathy Pillai and Ramanuja Pillai and even during 1933, Srinivasa Pillai, Parthasarathy Pillai and Ramanuja Pillai had been given patta for 11 cents. Thepperumal Pillai had three sons viz., Rajamannar Pillai, Doraisamy Pillai and Sadagopa Pillai and of them, Doraisamy Pillai and Sadagopa Pillai died unmarried and Rajamannar Pillai has been given patta for the share of 6 cents, which was enjoyed by Thepperumal Pillai and even during 1948, Rajamannar Pillai has relinquished in his share in favour of Parthasarathy Pillai, the father of the deceased first plaintiff and Parthasarathy Pillai was enjoying the same by obtaining patta in his name and thus, the entire 17 cents i.e. the suit property was in the possession and enjoyment of the heirs of Punniakodi Pillai jointly and among the sons of Punniakodi, Ramanuja Pillai died unmarried and Parthasarathy Pillai and Srinivasa Pillai were sometime enjoying the suit property jointly and thereafter, Srinivasa Pillai also relinquished his interest in favour of Parthasarathy Pillai and thus, Parthasarathy Pillai had been in possession and enjoyment of the entire suit property right from 1940 onwards and Subsequent to him, his son the deceased first plaintiff viz., Rajagopal Pillai has been in possession and enjoyment of the suit property in Paimash No.289 and the Paimash number abovestated is given new Survey Nos.232/1, 232/2 (part) and 232/3 (part) of Adampakkam Village and the suit property is cultivable Punja land and enjoyed by the deceased first plaintiff's father personally as well as through tenants and recently, the area has been developed into a town and the lands were converted into the housing plots and the entire 17 cents is shown as A schedule of the plaint and shown as ABCG in the plaint sketch and two years back, the first defendant association had trespassed into a part of the suit property measuring 13' 8 east-west and measuring 21' 4 north-south and constructed a temporary superstructure therein shown as DEFC in the plaint sketch, which is the B schedule property and however, the first defendant association has no manner of right, title or interest in respect of the said portion and the plaintiff reserves his right to file a separate suit with reference to the said property for appropriate reliefs. ABCDEF portion is the vacant site of A schedule property and it is only the plaintiff, who has got interest in respect of the same and while so, at the instigation of the first defendant, the second defendant endeavoured to put up temporary structures for public works in the C schedule of the suit property and with reference to the same, the plaintiff has objected and also preferred complaint to the appropriate authorities and despite the same, the defendants are attempting to interfere with the plaintiff's possession and enjoyment of the C schedule property and hence, the suit for necessary reliefs.

5. The case of the first defendant, in brief, is that