Entitlement to land and trees based on evidence and commissioner's report.

P. RAJAMANICKAM, J.

1. This second appeal has been filed by the defendants against the judgment and decree passed by the Additional District Judge, Tiruvannamalai in A.S.No.23 of 2000 and A.S.No.30 of 2000 dated 12.04.2000.

2. One Chinnakuzhandhai Ammal had filed a suit in O.S.No.917 of 1991 on the file of the District Munsif, Arni, to declare her title over the suit property and to restrain the defendants by means of permanent injunction from interfering with her peaceful possession and enjoyment of the suit property. During pendency of the said suit, the said Chinnakuzhandhai Ammal died and hence her legal representatives have been impleaded as plaintiff Nos.2 to 4. The learned District Munsif by the judgment dated 29.04.1997 has decreed the suit partly. He granted decree for declaration of plaintiff's title in respect of the land situated in S.No.27/5 measuring about 24 cents. He also granted decree for permanent injunction restraining the defendants from interfering with the plaintiff's enjoyment in respect of the trees situated on the A-C line as mentioned in Exs.C4 and C5. However, he dismissed the suit in respect of the trees situated on A-B line as mentioned in Ex.C4 and C5. He directed the parties to bear their respective costs.

3. The plaintiffs have filed an appeal in A.S.No.23 of 2000 on the file of the Additional District Judge, Tiruvannamalai, as against the disallowed portion of the prayer in the suit. The defendants have filed an appeal in A.S.No.30 of 2000 on the file of the Additional District Judge, Tiruvannamalai as against the decree granted in favour of the plaintiffs. The learned Additional District Judge, Tiruvannamalai by the common judgment dated 12.04.2000 has allowed the appeal in A.S.No.23 of 2000 without costs and decreed the suit as prayed for without costs. However, she dismissed the appeal in A.S.No.30 of 2000 without costs which was filed by the defendants. Feeling aggrieved, the defendants have filed the present second appeal. For the sake of convenience, the parties are referred to as described before the trial court.

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

The first plaintiff viz., Chinnakuzhandhai Ammal is the absolute owner of the suit property. She had purchased the same under a registered sale deed dated 25.03.1958. In the suit property, there are more than 40 palmyrah trees and the first plaintiff is in possession and enjoyment of the said trees. The first plaintiff had perfected title even by adverse possession by long and continuous possession for many years. The defendants are owners of the neighbouring land and they have no right or title over the land or the trees in the suit property. About two years ago, at the instance of the first plaintiff's daughter (third plaintiff), the Officer of the Survey Department had measured the lands of the first plaintiff and the defendants and demarcated the boundaries. It was then found that all the palmyrah trees are within the limits of the first plaintiff's land. The defendants were present at the time of measurement and accepted the correctness of the measurement, but subsequently, the defendants threatened to enter into the suit property and cut the palmyrah trees. Hence the first plaintiff was constrained to file the above suit for the aforesaid reliefs. During pendency of the suit, the first plaintiff died and her legal representatives have been impleaded as plaintiff Nos.2 to 4.

5. The averments made in the written statement filed by the second defendant and adopted by the defendants 1 and 3 are, in brief, as follows:

The defendants are brothers and they have divided their properties. In the said partition, the western portion was alloted to the third defendant, middle portion was allotted to the first defendant and eastern portion was allotted to the second defendant. These lands were purchased long back by the parents of the defendants and they were in possession and enjoyment of the same for several dec