JUDGMENT :

Prayer: Second Appeal has been filed under Section 100 of the Civil Procedure Code, against the judgment and decree dated 03.08.2001 made in A.S.No.149 of 1999 on the file of the learned Principal Subordinate Judge, Dindigul, reversing the judgment and decree dated 06.11.1998 made in O.S.No.179 of 1994 on the file of the learned District Munsif, Nilakkottai.

1. This Second Appeal has been preferred by the appellants/defendants, challenging the judgment and decree dated 03.08.2001 made in A.S.No.149 of 1999 on the file of the learned Principal Subordinate Judge, Dindigul, reversing the judgment and decree dated 06.11.1998 made in O.S.No.179 of 1994 on the file of the learned District Munsif, Nilakkottai.

2. The respondent/plaintiff herein has filed a suit in O.S.No.179 of 1994 on the file of the learned District Munsif, Nilakkottai, seeking for the relief of declaration, declaring that the respondent/plaintiff was the absolute owner of the suit property and for the relief of consequential injunction, restraining the appellants/defendants and their men from in any way interfering with plaintiff’s peaceful possession and enjoyment of the suit property. The learned District Munsif, Nilakkottai, in its judgment dated 06.11.1998, had dismissed the suit with respective cost.

3. Aggrieved over the said findings, the respondent herein has filed an appeal in A.S.No.149 of 1999 on the file of the learned Principal Subordinate Judge, Dindigul. By a judgment and decree dated 03.08.2001, the learned Principal Subordinate Judge, had allowed the said appeal by stating that the respondent/plaintiff was entitled to the relief of declaration and injunction. Feeling aggrieved by the same, the appellants/defendants are before this Court with the present Second Appeal.

4. For the sake of convenience, the parties are referred to herein, as per their ranking in the suit.

5. The averments made in the plaint filed by the plaintiff, in brief, are as follows:

5.1. Earlier one T.C.Ramasamy was the absolute owner of the suit schedule property. After his demise, his wife Subbammal and daughter Azhagammal, devolved the suit property by succession. On 29.10.1982, the plaintiff has purchased the suit property and from the date of purchase, he is in possession and enjoyment of the suit property. During the relevant period of sale, the suit schedule property is having Survey No.287/2. In the suit schedule property, there was a well and the same was obtained by the vendor of the plaintiff vide sale deed dated 22.10.1932. In fact, the said Subbammal was the owner of Survey No.286, however, patta to the suit property and the well stands in the names of T.C.R.Subbammal-1, Azhagammal-2, T.Subbammal-3. During the time of UDR proceedings, the suit schedule property was assigned as Survey Nos.287/2A and 287/2B. Further, separate patta was issued in the name of the plaintiff in respect to Survey No.287/2A in patta no.1812. Therefore, the defendants are not having any title and enjoyment over the suit schedule property.

5.2. Before filing of the suit, the plaintiff received a notice from the Tahsildar, Nilakkottai, for attending an enquiry to be held on 27.12.1993. While at the time of enquiry, the plaintiff came to know that the defendants had submitted a petition before the Revenue Authorities by claiming right over the suit schedule property. After enquiry, the Tahsildar, Nilakkottai, passed an order dated 21.04.1994, in which, he directed the plaintiff to include the names of the defendants in the patta, which pertains to the suit property. Thereafter, on 09.07.1994, the defendants are attempted to interfere with the plaintiff's possession. Hence, the suit.

6. The averments made in the written statement filed by the defendants, in brief, are as follows:

6.1. It is not correct to say that the plaintiff has purchased the suit property from one Subbammal. In fact, the suit property belongs to the predecessor of the defendants, namely, Venkatarama Naicker residing at Ver