Failure to establish claim of title and possession, lack of cause of action.

Challenge in this second appeal is made to the judgment and decree dated 24.10.2002, passed in A.S.No.221 of 2002, on the file of the Principal District Court, Namakkal, confirming the judgment and decree dated 11.07.1997, passed in O.S. No.478 of 1995, on the file of the Additional District Munsif Court, Namakkal.

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 plaintiffs, in brief is that the suit properties had been acquired by the first plaintiff through his mother as well as the second plaintiff by way of purchase from one Arumugha Udayar and others and been in the possession and enjoyment of the plaintiffs and the plaintiffs are enjoying the suit properties by obtaining patta, paying kist etc., The plaintiffs' properties comprising of vacant site and houses are shown as P series in the plaint plan and the defendants' properties comprising of houses and lands are shown as D series and in the common way cart track shown as PH in the plaint plan, the same belong only to the plaintiffs and one Sundaram and Jayam and accordingly, it is the case of the plaintiff that the properties shown as P1, P3, P4, P5 and P6 belong to the first plaintiff ancestrally and the property shown as P2 belong to the second plaintiff by way of purchase from Arumugha Udayar and others on 28.08.87 and the plaintiffs were running poultry farming in the property shown as P3 by putting up a soolai and about 10 years ago, the first defendant approached the plaintiffs and requested them to lease the property P3 in their favour and accordingly, the said property had been let out to the defendants and thereafter, as the defendants were was not regular in the payment of rent, they were directed to vacate the suit property. However, the defendants were delaying the same, later started asserting title to the property shown as P3 by claiming that they had been issued patta in respect of the said property. However, the defendants are not entitled to the property shown as P3 in the plaint plan and as far as PH common way cart track is concerned, the defendants are not entitled to in respect of the same and on the other hand, without any authority the defendants attempted to discharge their drainage water by laying a pipeline through the said common way cart track and also attempted to interfere with the plaintiffs' possession and enjoyment of the other items of the suit properties. Hence, according to the plaintiffs, they had been necessitated to lay the suit for appropriate reliefs.

5. The case of the defendants, in brief, is that the suit laid by the plaintiffs is not maintainable either in law or on facts. It is false to state that the properties shown as P1, P3, P4, P5 and P6 belong to the plaintiffs ancestrally and the property shown as P2 was acquired by the second plaintiff by way of purchase from Arumugha Udayar and others on 28.08.87 and it is false to state that the plaintiffs had been running a poultry farm in P3 and put up a soolai and the same had been rented to the defendants and the plaintiffs had demanded the defendants to vacate the same and thereafter, the defendants had asserted title to the said property by claiming patta in their favour and the defendants do not claim any interest in the properties shown as P1, P2, P5 and P6 and therefore, the case of the plaintiffs that the defendants are interfering with their enjoyment of the pathway from P5 portion to P6 portion is false. It is false to state that PH cart track exclusively belonged to the plaintiffs and one Jayam and Sundaram and on the other hand, in the release deed dated 10.11.80, executed between the first plaintiff and others, the abovesaid cart track is shown to be extending upto Nainamalai and the said cart track is common to one and all and the cart track proceeds upto Nainamalai temple, Karumalai and Chinnakulam and in respect of the cart track portion, joint patta had been