The importance of establishing full possession and enjoyment of the suit property and the need for accurate property description and valid proof in property disputes.

T. RAVINDRAN, J.

1. Challenge in this second appeal is made to the judgment and decree dated 21.12.2004 passed in A.S. No. 36 of 2004 on the file of the Additional Subordinate Court, Mayiladuthurai reversing the judgment and decree dated 11.08.2003 passed in O.S. No. 154 of 2000 on the file of the Additional District Munsif Court, Mayiladuthurai.

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

"1. Whether the lower appellate court is justified in relying on documents marked in some other suit without proper proof in the manner known to law?

2. Whether the lower appellate court is erred in not framing proper points arising for consideration as mandated by order 41 rule 31 of CPC?

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. For the sake of convenience, the parties are referred to as per their rankings in the trial court.

5. Suit for permanent injunction. The case of the plaintiff, in brief, is that she had purchased the suit property from one Balasubramania Iyer and enjoying the same for more than 20 years by paying kists, etc. and the plaintiff is a widow and the defendant is her brother. The plaintiff had been permitting the defendant to pluck usufructs of the trees lying in the suit property now and then and on the other hand, the defendant on its own, by attempting to tresspass into the suit property, had endeavoured to enjoy the usufructs of the trees in the suit property and the same had been prevented by the plaintiff. However, inasmuch as the defendant continued in persisting his unlawful action and thereby disturbed the plaintiff's possession and enjoyment of the suit property, it is stated that the plaintiff has been necessitated to lay the suit for appropriate relief.

6. The defendant resisted the plaintiff's suit contending that the suit property has not been properly described, particularly, the boundaries to the suit property. To the north of the suit property, the land belonging to the defendant's wife Mariammal, measuring 11 ½ cent lie and only to the north of the same kalam lies and suppressing the same, the plaintiff has come forward with the suit inclusive of the property belonging to the defendant's wife. Even the extent of the suit property has not been correctly given. It should be only 54 kulies and the suit property is stated to be measuring 56 kulies and the suit property is inclusive of the defendant's wife's property as abovestated. Even the commissioner, who had been appointed in the matter, had noted the physical features obtaining in the suit property and therefore, the suit property is not in the possession and enjoyment of the plaintiff as put forth in the plaint and hence the suit is liable to be dismissed.

7. In support of the plaintiff's case PWs. 1 and 2 were examined and Exs.A1 to A8 were marked. On the side of the defendant, DWs. 1 and 2 were examined and Ex.B1 was marked. Exs.C1 and C2 were also marked.

8. On a consideration of the oral and documentary evidence adduced by the respective parties and the submissions made, the trial court was pleased to decree the suit in favour of the plaintiff as prayed for. The first appellate court, on an appreciation of the materials placed on record, partly allowed the appeal by determining that the plaintiff is entitled to the relief of permanent injunction in respect of the house bearing door No. 5/61 lying in the suit property and in other aspects, dismissed the plaintiff's suit and accordingly disposed of the appeal preferred by the defendant. Impugning the same, the plaintiff has come forward with the second appeal.

9. From the materials placed on record, it is found that the plaintiff claims title to the suit property based on the sale deed dated 12.09.2000 marked as Ex.A7. The suit property is described as lying in the suit village in survey No. 329/1A consisting o