1. This second appeal has been filed by the defendants against the Judgment and Decree passed by the 1st Additional District Judge cum Chief Judicial Magistrate, Coimbatore in A.S.No.41 of 1999 dated 06.08.1999 reversing the Judgment and Decree passed by the III Additional District Munsif, Coimbatore in O.S.No.2186 of 1994 dated 10.12.1998.

2. The respondent herein has filed a suit in O.S.No.2186 of 1994 on the file of the III Additional District Munsif, Coimbatore, for permanent injunction to restrain the defendants, their men, agents, etc., from interfering with his peaceful possession and enjoyment of the suit property. The learned District Munsif has dismissed the said suit with cost by the Judgment dated 10.12.1998. Aggrieved by the same, the plaintiff has filed an appeal in A.S.No.41 of 1999 on the file of the 1st Additional District Judge -cum- Chief Judicial Magistrate, Coimbatore. The learned 1st Additional District Judge-cum-Chief Judicial Magistrate, Coimbatore, by his Judgment dated 06.08.1999, has allowed the said appeal with cost and set aside the Judgment and Decree passed by the Trial Court and decreed the suit as prayed for with cost. As against the same, the defendants have preferred the present second appeal. For the sake of convenience, the parties are referred to as described before the trial court.

3. The averments made in the plaint, are in brief, as follows:

The plaintiff is the owner of the suit property. He purchased the suit property on 07.01.1965 from one Tmt.Selvam and her son, Gurusamy. Subsequently on 30.04.1993, a proper registered sale deed was executed in favour of the plaintiff. The plaintiff is in possession and enjoyment of the suit property right from 07.01.1965. Before the plaintiff, his predecessors in title were in possession and enjoyment of the suit property as absolute owners thereof. Originally the suit property was the vacant site. Subsequently, the plaintiff has put up a thatched shed in a portion of the suit property facing North. The shed is in existence for more than 15 years. The plaintiff is using the thatched shed for cooking purposes and also for residential purposes. The remaining extent is used as a vacant site which is serving as front yard to the residential house of the plaintiff and to the thatched shed. The plaintiff wanted to put up a pucca construction in the suit property and in that view in mind, he has stored bolder stones and black stones in the vacant space within the suit property. But due to some financial problems, the plaintiff could not put up the construction. The plaintiff is residing with his family members in the residential house just abetting the suit property on the north-western side. The plaintiff's house is bearing Door.No.1/42 -A. The plaintiff is the owner of the suit property by virtue of sale deed. Even otherwise, he has perfected title by adverse possession. The plea of adverse possession is taken as an alternative plea without prejudice to the other contentions of the plaintiff. The defendants are the neighbours of the plaintiff. They are not in talking terms with the plaintiff for the past two years. The defendants are having an eye over the suit property and therefore, they are attempting to encroach the suit property. Hence, the plaintiff was constrained to file a suit for permanent injunction.

4. The averments made in the written statement filed by the fourth defendant and adopted by other defendants, are in brief, as follows:

It is false to state that the plaintiff is the owner of the suit property. It is also false to state that he purchased the same on 07.01.1965 from one Selvam and her son Gurusamy and subsequently the same was confirmed by a registered sale deed dated 30.04.1993. It is also false to state that the plaintiff is in possession and enjoyment of the suit property from 07.01.1965. There is a vacant space situated immediately on the east of the defendants' building. The fourth defendant is the owner of the property