The necessity of providing specific details and evidence to establish ancestral ownership and possession of property in a suit for permanent injunction.

1. This second appeal is directed against the judgment and decree dated 28.11.2003, passed in A.S.No.249 of 2002, on the file of the Additional District and Sessions Judge (Fast Track Court), Kallakurichi, reversing the judgment and decree dated 15.03.2001, passed in O.S.No.400 of 1997, on the file of the Second Additional District Munsif Court, Kallakurichi.

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

3. Suit for permanent injunction.

4. The case of the plaintiff, in brief, is that the suit property described in the plaint schedule belong to the plaintiff ancestrally and the same is in his possession and enjoyment and accordingly, recognising the same, patta had been granted in favour of the plaintiff on 28.07.95 and accordingly, the plaintiff and his predecessors in title have been enjoying the suit property for more than fifty years and thereby prescribed title to the same by way of adverse possession. The defendants 1 and 2 have no right, possession and enjoyment of the suit property and the defendants, being the pangalis to the plaintiff, on account of the family dispute, attempted to interfere with the plaintiff's possession and enjoyment of the suit property by raising foundation in the suit property without any basis and hence, according to the plaintiff, he has been necessitated to lay the suit for appropriate reliefs.

5. The case of the defendants, in brief, is that the suit laid by the plaintiff is not maintainable either in law or on facts. It is false to state that the suit property is the ancestral property of the plaintiff and in his possession and enjoyment and that the patta had been granted in favour of the plaintiff in respect of the suit property. The suit property has not been properly described. The plaintiff has not given any measurements for the suit property and it is false to state that the defendants attempted to lay a foundation in the suit property without any legal entitlement. Further, according to the defendants, the property situated to the south of the plaintiff's house and vacant site belongs to the first defendant by purchase from the lawful owner Chinnathambi under a registered sale deed dated 05.01.1966 and accordingly, the defendants 1 and 2 are in possession and enjoyment of the said property measuring 10 yards east west and 9 yards north south with a house and vacant site in their own right and also prescribed title to the same, on account of the long enjoyment by way of adverse possession also and the plaintiff cannot make any valid claim in respect of the suit property and the defendants on obtaining the sanction, for putting up construction in the property acquired by them as abovestated, also laid a foundation and the plaintiff is not entitled to interfere with the same and hence, according to the defendants, the plaintiff has not come to the Court with clean hands and the suit, without any cause of action, is liable to be dismissed.

6. In support of the plaintiff's case, PW1 has been examined, Ex.A1 was marked. On the side of the defendants, DW1 was examined, Exs.B1 to B13 were marked.

7. On a consideration of the oral and documentary evidence adduced by the respective parties and the submissions made, the trial Court was pleased to decree the suit as prayed for. The first appellate Court, on an appreciation of the materials placed on record, was pleased to set-aside the judgment and decree of the trial Court and by way of allowing the appeal preferred by the defendants, dismissed the suit laid by the plaintiff. Impugning the same, the present second appeal has been laid.

8. At the time of admission of second appeal, the following substantial questions of law were formulated consideration:

1. Whether or not the appellant is entitled to 1/3 share and respondents 1 and 2 are entitled to 2/3 share of the ancestral property comprised of 30' on the East to West and 36' on the north to south?

2. Whether or not the Government have rightly granted patta in respect