JUDGMENT :

G. JAYACHANDRAN, J.

1. The appellants are the defendants in the suit. Respondents 1 and 2 in the appeal are the plaintiffs. The third respondent is the fifth defendant. The appeal is preferred against the concurrent finding of the Courts below in the suit filed for declaration of title in respect of A and B schedule properties, Mandatory Injunction to remove the constructions made on A and B schedule properties and to hand over the vacant possession to the plaintiffs.

2. The case of the plaintiffs is that the suit property described under schedule A and B of the plaint, originally belongs to one Meenakshi Ammal, who is the maternal grandmother of the plaintiffs. The property was purchased by Meenakshi Ammal under a sale deed dated 25.06.1923. In the year 1945, Meenakshi Ammal died leaving her son and daughter viz., Ramasamy and Rengammal. Ramasamy, Son of Meenakshi Ammal left the family forty years ago and not heard thereafter. Rengammal the daughter of Meenakshi Ammal, inherited the property as per the law prevailing at that point of time. Rengammal got married Rajagopal. The plaintiffs are son and daughter of Rengammal.

3. Schedule "A" and "B" properties and the property East of it are assessed to land revenue. "B" schedule property is situated on the east of "A" schedule property. Both "A" and "B" schedule properties are situated on the west of the remaining property which are not owned by the plaintiffs. The property on the immediate east of "B" schedule property originally belongs to Meenakshi Ammal, which she sold in the year 1924 to one Hassan khan measuring 30 feet East-West, 105 feet North-South. The immediate West of it measuring 48 feet East-West, North-South 105 feet was sold by Rengammal to Muthaiya Pillai on 15.06.1950. In the said sale deed, Ramasamy brother of Rengammal also signed as an Executor, at the instance of the purchaser Muthia Pillai. This property, after passing through several hands, ultimately purchased by Thamarai Ponmalar, W/o James Jayakumar. Property further East, which also originally belongs to Meenakshi Ammal, after passing through several hands, ultimately purchased by Abdul Rahman, who is the younger brother of defendants 1 and 2 (Abdul Munaf Sahib, Abdul Jabbar Sahib).

4. The western boundary of the property has been wrongly mentioned as Perumal temple in all the documents, though it should have been mentioned as remaining property of Meenakshi Ammal. This error was not noticed for long years by any of the parties to the documents, though the ownership was always with Meenakshi Ammal and her successors-in-interest. More particularly, Thamarai Ponmalar nor Abdul Rahman nor their predecessors-in-interest were never in possession of suit "A" and "B" schedule properties. They were exercising ownership only over the property located on the East of suit "B" schedule property being vacant land. The plaintiffs were living away from the property. The defendants taking advantage have entered into "A" and "B" schedule property claiming ownership. When the third defendant tried to put up construction in the suit schedule property, the encroachment made by the defendants came to the knowledge of the plaintiffs. When the plaintiffs questioned the third defendant, they were informed that they have purchased "B" schedule property from one Kathiresan claiming to be the power of attorney of James Jayakumar. Further investigation made by the plaintiffs unravelled that several fraudulent and clandestine documents were created by persons, who have no title to the property. Hence, relief of declaration and mandatory injunction have been sought for.

5. The description of properties in the suit schedule is extracted below for easy understanding of the dispute involved in this appeal:-

xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx

6. Defendants 1 to 3 had filed a common written statement, wherein it is contended that, the description of the properties is not correct. They admit that the suit "A" and "B" Schedule property and the pro