JUDGMENT :

Prayer:- Second Appeal filed under Section 100 of the Code of Civil Procedure, to set aside the judgment and decree passed in A.S.No.35 of 2014 on the file of the Principal Sub Court, Tirunelveli, dated 30.10.2014 confirming the judgment and decree made in O.S.No.528 of 1991 on the file of Additional District Munsif Court, Tirunelveli, dated 04.10.2013.

The unsuccessful defendant in both the Courts below is the appellant before this Court.

2. The above second appeal emanates from the judgment passed in the suit O.S.No.528 of 1991 which is a suit filed for bare injunction. The parties are referred to in the same array as in the suit.

3. The property in question is comprised in R.S.No.490, which is now comprised in Natham S.No.985/1, in Munneerpallam Village, Melapalayam, Tirunelveli District. The property is described as a vacant site measuring east to west 5 carpenter feet and north to south 141/2 carpenter feet together with a mud-walled hut with a damaged thatched roof. This property is said to be situated on the following side:

South of : Easwari Ammal Kovil street

East of : Sudalaimadan's vacant site

North of : the east-west street

West of : Sudalaimadan's house.

PLAINTIFF'S CASE:

4. The plaintiff had come forward with the suit stating that the suit property originally belonged to one Veerakudumban. Veerakudumban had two sons, Subban and Pachaimal. Subban had two sons, Easwaran and Velayutham and Pachaimal had one son, Chelladurai.

4.1. The plaintiff would contend that in the family partition, the suit property was allotted to the share of Velayutham and he has been in exclusive possession and enjoyment of the same. On 02.05.1977, the said Velayutham had sold the property to the plaintiff for a valuable consideration of Rs.500/- and the recitals of the said deed would clearly state that the said property fell to the share of Velayutham under a partition. He would further contend that he had also filed a suit O.S.No.303 of 1983 against Pachaimal for the very same relief of permanent injunction, and had also obtained an order of interim injunction and that the said suit was dismissed for default on 14.06.1990 and an application has been made to restore the said suit and the same is pending.

4.2. The plaintiff would further contend that Pachaimal thereafter had instigated the defendant to interfere in the plaintiff's possession and enjoyment of the suit property. When the property was purchased by the plaintiff, there was a hut and two palm trees and karuvai trees. According to the plaintiff, the hut had fallen down and the property was being enjoyed by storing hayrick and manure. He would further contend that he and his predecessors in title had also perfected title by adverse possession. Originally, the property was comprised in R.S.No.490 and now, the property is comprised as Natham S.No.985/1. On 25.08.1991, the defendant had attempted to disturb the plaintiff's possession, which was successfully prevented by the plaintiff and therefore, the plaintiff was constrained to file the suit in question.

DEFENDANT'S CASE:

5. The defendant had filed a written statement inter alia contenting that the suit property did not belong to Velayutham, the vendor of the plaintiff and consequently, the sale in favour of the plaintiff was invalid. He would admit that the property originally belonged to Veerakudumban, who had purchased the property under a registered sale deed dated 03.01.1924.

5.1. The defendant would further contend that the said Veerakudumban was in possession and enjoyment of the property throughout his life time and thereafter, his two sons had divided the property equally amongst themselves. The western half was allotted to the share of Subban and a similar extent was allotted to Pachaimal on the east. Pachaimal was in possession and enjoyment of his portion throughout his life time and thereafter, his only son, Chelladurai was in enjoyment of the said property by storing hayrick and manure in the vacant site. He would furth