The court emphasized that the plaintiff's claim of exclusive possession must be established, and in the absence of conclusive evidence, joint possession cannot be overlooked.

1. Challenge in this Second Appeal is made to the judgment and decree dated 19.09.2014 passed in A.S. No. 60 of 2003 on the file of subordinate Court, Arni confirming the judgment and decree dated 29.08.2003 passed in O.S. No. 28 of 2001 on the file of the Court of Additional District Munsif, Arni.

2. The second appeal has been admitted on the following substantial questions of law.

"(a) Whether the Courts below were right in not dismissing the suit for non-impleading the Government as a party, when it is an admitted case that the Government is the absolute owner of the property?

(b) Whether the findings of the courts below were right in simply discarding Ex.B12 which relates to the suit property showing possession on the part of the 1st defendant? And

(c) Whether the courts below were right in decreeing the suit simply based on the House Tax Receipts and one 'B' Memo alone?

3. Considering the scope of the issues involved between the parties as regards the subject matter lying in a narrow compass, it is unnecessary to dwell into the facts of the case in detail.

4. The materials placed on record go to show that the suit property is the proramboku property belonging to the Government. Thus, it is found that the plaintiff, claiming the possession and enjoyment of the suit property and accordingly seeking that she is entitled to obtain the grant of patta in her favour in respect of the suit property, accordingly had laid the suit against the defendants for the appropriate reliefs. Later, it is found that as regards the relief sought for by the plaintiff against the defendant 6 and 7 for the issuance of the grant of patta in her favour in respect of the suit property, the said relief has not come to be pressed by the plaintiff and accordingly it is seen that the suit as against the defendants 6 and 7, namely, the Tahsildar, Arni and the Sub Collector, Cheyyar has come to be dismissed.

5. The plaintiff is the wife of Chandrasekaran. Now, according to the plaintiff, Gajan and her husband chandrasekaran are brothers and it is they, who had encroached the suit property belonging to the Government and put up a hut therein and enjoying the same and according to the plaintiff Gajan died and thereafter it is only her husband who had been enjoying the suit property by paying necessary encroachment taxes to the Government and it is also the case of the plaintiff that her husband parted with Rs. 20,000/- to the legal heirs of Gajan, namely, the defendants as such and obtained the document dated 22.05.1992 from them in his favour and thereby demolished the old hut put up therein and installed a new foundation/super-structure in the suit property by putting up a compound wall, etc. and accordingly it is stated that her husband and thereby the plaintiff, is in the possession and enjoyment of the suit property and inasmuch as the defendants attempted to interfere with their possession and enjoyment, according to the plaintiff, she had been necessiated to lay the suit for relief of permanent injunction against the defendants 1 to 5.

6. The defendants 1 to 5 resisted the plaintiff's suit disputing the claim of the payment of Rs. 20,000/- by the plaintiff's husband to the legal heirs of Gajan for giving up the suit property in his favour and also the execution of a document dated 22.05.1992 in his favour as alleged in the plaint and according to the defendants, they continue to remain in the occupation of the suit property right from the days of their predecessor in interest, namely, Gajan by paying necessary house tax in respect of the super-structure put up therein and enjoying the same and accordingly contended that the plaintiff is not in the possession and enjoyment of the suit property and also put forth the case that the plaintiff, taking advantage of her husband's position, who is a retired police officer, on that basis attempted to exclude the defendants from the enjoyment of the suit property illegally and thereby created certain documents