T. Ravindran, J.

In this second appeal, challenge is made to the judgment and decree dated 02.03.2015 passed in A.S.No.23 of 2012 on the file of the Additional Subordinate Court (Trainee District Judge), Namakkal, confirming the judgment and decree dated 22.03.2012 passed in O.S. No.131 of 2007 on the file of the Principal District Munsif Court, Namakkal.

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

3. Suit for declaration, permanent injunction and mandatory injunction.

4. The case of the plaintiff, in brief, is that he has filed the rough plan along with the plaint, and given the ancestral properties belonging to him at Rettaiyampatti village in survey number 777/16 as P1, P2,P3,P4 and P5 and described the property belonging to the defendants as D and the P5 portion as described in the plaint is a lane and the plaintiff is residing in P2 portion in a hut put up therein and paying taxes to the panchayat and the plaintiff is producing the patta issued in his favour in patta number 213 as well his brother Marama Reddiyar and Marama Reddiyar, being a bachelor, delivered the possession of the suit property in favour of the plaintiff and accordingly it is only the plaintiff who has been in the possession and enjoyment of the same for 15 years. The plaintiff has put up a dumping yard in the southern corner of the P4 portion and also constructed a tiled house on the northern side of the same and other portions are remaining as vacant site and the defendants have no right in the property shown as "P" series in the rough plan and the defendants have constructed a house only on the 'D' portion, however, by exceeding their boundary, encroached into P5 portion despite the objection put forth by the plaintiff and accordingly the defendants are liable to remove the encroachment made by them in P5 portion and hence it is stated that the plaintiff has been necessitated to lay the suit for appropriate reliefs.

5. The defendants have resisted the plaintiff's suit by contending that the description of the plaint schedule property in dispute is incorrect and the rough plan is also incorrect, the plaintiff has failed to implead all the legal heirs of Bolamareddiyar and cannot seek the relief independently and hence the suit is bad for non joinder of necessary parties. The father of the first defendant Rajamma Reddiyar and the plaintiff's father Bolamareddiyar are brothers and the suit property was enjoyed in common as one lot by them and accordingly both are equally entitled to eqaul share and Rajamareddiyars' properties devolved upon his wife Sellammal, daughter Rangammal. Mother Sellammal executed a will dated 18.01.1983 be-quething the suit properties to Rangammal and thereafter, Rangammal had executed a gift deed to the third defendant on 09.02.2007 and hence by way of the abovestated will and gift deed, the third defendant is entitled to an extent of 805 sq.ft. and the plaintiff having not put forth any objection to the construction put up by the defendants in their property and on the other hand, in the guise of certain documents created with the help of the revenue officials, cannot put forth any objection to the alleged encroachment of the defendants in respect of the property in their possession and enjoyment and the alleged encroachment is false. The plaintiff has no cause of action to lay the suit and hence the suit is liable to be dismissed.

6. In support of the Plaintiff's case, PW1 to PW3 were examined and Exs.A1 to A4 were marked. On the side of the defendants Dw1 and DW2 were examined and EXs.B1 and B2 were marked. Exs.C1 and C2 as well as Exs.X1 to X3 were also marked.

7. On a consideration of the oral and documentary evidence adduced by the respective parties and the submissions made, the courts below were pleased to accept the plaintiff's case and impugning the same, the present second appeal has been laid by the defendants.

8. At the time of admission of the second appeal, the following substantial quest