JUDGMENT :

R. Pongiappan, J.

1. The Second Appeal has been filed by the defendants 1, 3 to 6/appellants against the Judgment and Decree dated 29.06.2009 in A.S. No. 130 of 2008, on the file of the learned Additional Sub Judge, Kumbakonam.

2. The respondent herein has filed a suit in O.S. No. 91 of 2001 on the file of the learned District Munsif-cum-Judicial Magistrate, Papanasam, seeking for the relief of injunction restraining the defendants and their men from in anyway interfering with her peaceful possession and enjoyment of the suit property. The learned Principal District Munsif cum Judicial Magistrate, Papanasam by Judgment and Decree dated 29.02.2008, partly allowed the suit and granted the relief of injunction in respect to suit A-schedule property. The suit has been dismissed in respect to B-schedule property.

3. Aggrieved by the same, the plaintiff filed an appeal in A.S. No. 130 of 2008, on the file of the learned Additional Subordinate Judge, Kumbakonam. By Judgment and Decree, dated 29.06.2009, the learned Additional Subordinate Judge, Kumbakonam, allowed the appeal and decreed the suit as prayed for. Feeling aggrieved by the same, the defendants have filed the present Second Appeal.

4. For the sake of convenience the parties are referred to as, as described, before the trial Court.

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

By way of getting the patta from the Government, the plaintiff becomes the absolute owner of the A-schedule property. In respect to B-schedule property shown in the rough sketch, a joint patta was issued in the name of three persons, viz., Alamelu Ammal, Saradambal and Rajagopala Iyer. Since the plaintiff and her father are in possession and enjoyment of the suit property for the long period, i.e., nearly about 30 years, the plaintiff perfected title to the suit property by means of adverse possession. Though in the revenue records, patta stands in the name of three persons as joint patta, the said pattathars have not opposed the plaintiff's possession and enjoyment in the B-schedule property till date. The possession of the B-schedule property is with the plaintiff as a absolute owner of the same. The plaintiff enjoyed A and B schedule properties as one square. The plaintiff had constructed a house in a portion of A-schedule property and in a portion of B-schedule property and thereby, she is in possession and enjoyment of the same. On the backside of the said house, the plaintiff installed a hand pump and enjoying the B-schedule property by keeping manure pit and planted various trees, viz., Palmyra, Poovarasu and Coconut trees. The 1st defendant started to put up a construction in a portion of the suit property and the same was prevented by the plaintiff. The second defendant died during the pendency of the suit, hence the legal representatives of the second defendant, viz., D3 to D6 are impleaded as defendant Nos. 3 to 6.

6. The averments made in the written statement filed by the second defendant and adopted by the first defendant, in brief, are as follows:

The second defendant is not aware about the granting of patta in respect of A-Schedule property. The description with regard to the A-schedule property is not correct. The extent stated, boundaries furnished and the survey number stated in respect to the A-Schedule property is not admitted. The plaintiff is bound to prove that the joint patta was issued to the B-schedule property. It is incorrect to state that the plaintiff and her father having the possession of A and B schedule properties for more than 30 years. The plaintiffs father never enjoyed the suit B-schedule property. The plaintiff has come forward with this suit just to claim some right in respect to B-schedule property. The plaintiff was previously residing in Udumalpet Village. Thereafter, the plaintiff residing at Papanasam and in Kabisthalam Village. There was a clear demarcation line in between A-schedule property and B-schedule property. The 1st and 2nd def