1. Challenge in this second appeal is made to the Judgment and Decree dated 30.01.2004 passed in A.S.No.81 of 2003 on the file of the Principal Subordinate Court, Chengalpattu, confirming the Judgment and Decree dated 20.06.2003 passed in O.S.No.193 of 1990 on the file of the District Munsif Court, Chengalpattu.

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

3. Suit for Declaration, Possession and Permanent Injunction.

4. The case of the plaintiff, in brief, is that he is the absolute owner of 0.15 cents out of 0.30cents in dry survey Number 119/1 in Vandalur No.2 Chengalpattu Taluk, described in the plaint A schedule property and had purchased the same from M.Parthasarathy, the registered power of Attorney agent of M.Krishnaswami S/o. M. Srinivasacharlu under a registered sale deed dated 12.10.1989 for Rs.21,000/- and obtained the possession of the suit property from the vendor and prior to the purchase, the plaintiff and his father had been in the possession of the plaint A schedule property for more than 50 years as the tenants of M.Srinivasacharlu Vagaira and the defendants have no interest or right in the suit property and they are inimically disposed of towards the plaintiff for the last 5 years and on 19.03.1990, the defendants high handedly trespassed into the south western portion of the plaintiff's property to an extent of 0.03 cents and put up a hut thereon on 19.03.1990 and 20.03.1990, despite the protests from the plaintiff and the entire 0.15 cents shown in the plaint A schedule property is described as ABCD in the plaint sketch and the portion trespassed by the defendants is described as EFGH in the plaint plan and shown in the plaint B schedule property and as the plaintiff apprehends that the defendants may also trespass into the rest of the portions of the plaint A schedule property, 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. The plaintiff is not the absolute owner of 0.15 cents out of 0.30 cents in dry survey No.119/1 in Vandalur Village, Chengalpattu Taluk and the land in the abovesaid survey number totally an extent of 0.30 cents is a Poramboke land and the allegation that the Plaintiff had purchased the same from M.Parthasarathy, the registered power of attorney agent of Mr.Krishnaswamy S/o. M. Srinivasacharlu under a registered sale deed dated 12.10.1989 is false and the sale deed is a bogus one. No consideration had been paid under the said sale deed by the plaintiff and the further allegation made by the plaintiff that he had obtained the possession of the plaint A schedule property by way of the abovesaid sale deed is also false. Neither the plaintiff nor his vendor nor the vendor's father had been in the possession and enjoyment of the plaint A schedule property and the further allegation that the plaintiff and his father had been in the possession and enjoyment of the plaint schedule property as the tenants of Srinivasacharlu vagaira for the past 50 years is false. The defendants are in the lawful possession and enjoyment of an extent of 0.03 cents in survey No.119/1 described as the plaint B schedule property and the description of the plaint B schedule property as such is not admitted by the defendants and the plaint B schedule property has been in the possession and enjoyment of the defendants for more than 15 years and the buildings have been put up therein by the defendants during 1965 and 1966 and the defendants have spent considerable amount to level the land, put up the building etc. in the suit property and the plaint plan is incorrect. The correct survey number for the suit property is 119/2C1 and the plaintiff, in order to grab the poramboke land in the occupation of the defendants, has come forward with the false suit and there is a Kulakarai road abutting the B schedule property, imme