The plaintiff's failure to provide sufficient evidence to prove ownership and enjoyment of the disputed property led to the dismissal of the suit.

(Prayer in S.A.No.2161 of 2002: Second Appeal has been filed under Section 100 of the Civil Procedure Code against the Judgment and Decree dated 19.12.2001 passed in A.S.Nos.57 of 2000 on the file of the Subordinate Judge, Bhavani, reversing the judgment and decree dated 30.06.2000 passed in O.S.No.122 of 1988 on the file of the Principal District Munsif Court, Bhavani.

S.A.No.651 of 2004: Second Appeal has been filed under Section 100 of the Civil Procedure Code against the Judgment and Decree dated 19.12.2001 passed in A.S.Nos.59 of 2000 on the file of the Subordinate Judge, Bhavani, confirming the judgment and decree dated 30.06.2000 passed in O.S.No.122 of 1988 on the file of the Principal District Munsif Court, Bhavani.)

1. In second appeal No.2161 of 2002, challenge is made to the Judgment and Decree dated 19.12.2001 passed in A.S.No.57 of 2000 on the file of the Subordinate Court, Bhavani, reversing the judgment and decree dated 30.06.2000 passed in O.S.No.122 of 1988 on the file of the Principal District Munsif Court, Bhavani.

2. In second appeal No.651 of 2004, challenge is made to the Judgment and Decree dated 19.12.2001 passed in A.S.Nos.59 of 2000 on the file of the Subordinate Court, Bhavani, reversing the judgment and decree dated 30.06.2000 passed in O.S.No.122 of 1988 on the file of the Principal District Munsif Court, Bhavani.

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

4. Suffice to state that the suit has been laid by the plaintiff against the defendants for the reliefs of declaration and permanent injunction.

5. Briefly stated, according to the plaintiff, the property in S.F.No.373 of the suit village belonged to her father and after the demise of her father and mother Palaniammal, it is only the plaintiff and her sister, the 4th defendant, who had succeeded to the above said property and they had been in the possession and enjoyment of the same and it is stated that the plaintiff’s mother had planted coconut saplings about 30 in numbers in the above said property and out of them, 25 saplings had grown into full trees and since then, it is only the plaintiff and the 4th defendant, who had been enjoying the usufructs of the coconut trees as well as the field comprised in S.F.No.372 and the land lying to the north of S.F.No.373 and iteari was lying in S.F.No.372 and the thar road had been put up in the said itari portion and accordingly, the plaintiff’s mother is said to have put up the fence from west to east on the northern side of the property in S.F.No.373 and the defendants under the mistaken impression that a small portion of the area on the southern side of the above said fence is lying in S.F.No.372 collected penalty charges from the plaintiff and the 4th defendant and in this connection, representation had been made by the plaintiff and the 4th defendant to the authorities concerned but no order has been passed and further, according to the plaintiff, the defendants had been auctioning the usufructs of the coconut trees without any authority including the trees lying in the property belonging to the plaintiff in S.F.No.373 and it is stated that the plaintiff’s husband had also participated in the auction, but the same would not in any manner affect the right of the plaintiff in respect of the coconut trees in S.F.No.373 and as the defendants continued to persist in auctioning the coconut trees belonging to the plaintiff lying in S.F.No.373 and thereby, attempted to interfere with her possession and enjoyment of the property belonging to the plaintiff one way or the other, it is putforth that the plaintiff has been necessitated to lay the suit for appropriate reliefs against the defendants.

6. The defendants resisted the plaintiff’s suit contending that the plaintiff is not having any right to the portion lying in S.F.No.372 and the claim of the plaintiff that coconut saplings had been planted by her mother in S.F.No.373 is without any basis