The main legal point established in the judgment is that the plaintiffs failed to establish their claim of title to the suit property, and the suit for partition against the defendants was not legally sustainable.

JUDGMENT :

(Prayer: First Appeal filed under Section 96 of Civil Procedure Code, against the judgment and decree passed in O.S.No.80 of 2002, dated 13.12.2007, on the file of the Additional District Judge, Pondicherry, Karikkal.)

Aggrieved over the judgment and decree dated 13.12.2007, passed in O.S.No.80 of 2002, on the file of the Additional District Court, Pondicherry, Karikkal, the plaintiffs have preferred the first appeal.

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

3. Suit for partition and mesne profits.

4. Briefly stated, according to the plaintiffs, one Kandiah Chettiar purchased the plaint schedule property under a Vente Grosse dated 13.06.1910, within the specific boundaries and as per the practice observed at that point of time, the property has not been described with the extent in the sale deed and Kandiah Chettiar had a brother, by name, Muthiah Chettiar. Vaithialinga Chettiar is the son of Muthiah Chettiar. Kandiah Chettiar brought up the plaintiffs and the first defendant, who are the children of Vaithialinga Chettiar and out of the love and affection, Kandiah Chettiar bequeathed the suit property in favour of the plaintiffs and the first defendant by way of the will dated 15.03.1953 after providing the life estate in favour of the Viathialinga Chettiar and after the demise of Kandiah Chettiar on 14.07.1953, the will had come into effect and Vaithialinga Chettiar died in the year 1982 and after his demise, the plaintiffs and the first defendant became entitled to the suit property and the present Ramasamy Koil Street has been identified as Ragunatha Perumal Sannathi street and the suit property is situated at the junction of Ramasamy Koil street and nadutheru in T.R. Pattinam. The Government has acquired the lands bequeathed to the plaintiffs and the first defendant in Polagam village, for the purpose of setting up an Industrial Growth Centre. On the western side of the suit property, there was a bund running south to north and the property belonging to the second defendant was lying on the western side of the bund. The Government had also acquired the bund area and formed a road known as Neduntheru and due to the same, the boundaries of the suit property and the property of the second defendant had changed. The plaintiffs are living in the eastern side of the suit property by putting up a tiled house and they applied for the patta in respect of the suit property. The suit property had been assigned the survey Nos.140/522 to 140/527. The plaintiffs’ father Vaithialinga Chettiar had been granted the patta only in respect of the portion of the suit property and for the remaining portion, the patta had been issued in favour of the second defendant. The second defendant has no right or interest over any portion of the suit property and before the patta had been transferred in the name of the second defendant, no notice has been issued to the plaintiffs and the first defendant and the second defendant has committed encroachment on the western portion of the suit property despite the protest put forth by the plaintiffs and the first defendant, the defendants 3 to 6 were inducted by the second defendant into the suit property under some illegal arrangement and the defendants 2 to 6 are liable to pay damages to the plaintiffs and the first defendant for the use and occupation of the suit property. The seventh defendant is the trustee of the second defendant’s temple and he also attempted to commit trespass in a small portion on the northern side of the suit property. The suit had been laid by the plaintiffs against the seventh defendant for permanent injunction in O.S.No.182 of 2002 for the relief of Permanent Injunction. The plaintiffs demanded the possession of the suit property from the defendants by way of a notice and to the same, the defendants sent a reply containing false allegations and hence, the plaintiffs are obliged to file the suit for partition and m