The importance of registered documents and possession in determining ownership and entitlement to relief in a suit for injunction.

JUDGMENT

(Prayer: Second Appeal is filed under Section 100 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, against the decree and Judgment of the learned First Additional Sub Judge, Madurai, dated 19.12.2000 passed in A.S.No.41 of 1995 confirming that of the learned District Munsif, Madurai Town dated 06.03.1995 passed in O.S.No.797 of 1988.)

1. The plaintiffs are the appellants herein. The plaintiffs filed a suit for injunction restraining the defendants from interfering with their peaceful possession of the suit schedule property. The suit property is the piece of land measuring 3 ½ feet east-west and 33 feet of north south described in the rough sketch (Ganesan Road, Lakshimpuram). After contest, both the suit and appeal suit were dismissed. Hence, the second appeal filed by the appellants.

2. For the sake of the convenience, the parties are referred to as per their ranking before the trial Court, as plaintiffs and defendants.

3. The suit, out of which the above appeal arises, was filed by the plaintiffs for a permanent injunction restraining the defendants from interfering without possession of the suit property, namely an open space measuring 3 ½ feet East-West and 33 feet North-South situated on the west of plaintiff's house marked ADEF in the plan. Since the respondents tried to encroach and interfere without possession, the appellants/plaintiffs came forward with the present suit.

4. The respondents resisted the suit contending that the appellants have no right or title over the suit property but it belongs to the respondents and the appellants were never in possession.

5. Before the trial Court, on the side of the plaintiffs, the first plaintiff was examined himself as PW.1 and also one Tharmalingam was examined as PW.2 and Ex.A1 to Ex.A24 were marked. On the side of the defendants, two witnesses were examined as DW.1 and DW.2 and 10 documents were marked as Ex.B1 to Ex.B10. Apart from that, the Advocate Commissioner's report, plan and surveyor plan were marked as Ex.C1 to Ex.C4.

6. Having considered all the above materials placed before him, the learned District Munsif, Madurai, by judgment and decree dated 06.03.1995, had dismissed the suit. Against which, the appellants herein have filed an appeal in A.S.No.41 of 1995, on the file of the First Additional Subordinate Court, Madurai. The learned First Additional Subordinate Judge, Madurai, by judgment and decree, dated 19.12.2000, had dismissed the first appeal by confirming the judgement and decree passed by the trial Court. Feeling aggrieved by the same, the appellants/plaintiffs herein have filed the present second appeal.

7. At the time of admitting the Second Appeal, this Court has formulated the following Substantial Questions of Law, for consideration:-

(i) Whether Ex.B1 and Ex.B2 unregistered deeds of release one admissible in evidence?

(ii) Whether the judgment and decree of the learned First Additional Judge can be sustained in the absence of raising and settling out the points for determination and to state the reasons for such decision as provided for under order 41 Rule 31?

8. Heard both sides and perused the records.

9. The suit property is a piece of vacant land measuring 3 ½ feet X 30 feet lying on the western side of the plaintiffs' house. The defendants' house is situated on the western side of the said suit property. The plaintiffs' claim is that the suit property exclusively belongs to the plaintiffs. The plaintiffs purchased a property, which includes the suit property through a registered sale deed dated 15.07.1978 (Ex.A2) from one Gurusamy and others. The said vendors purchased the said property from one Kuppusamy Naidu through a registered sale deed dated 22.08.1968 (Ex.A15). The said Kuppusamy Naidu had purchased the property from one Mariammal, through a registered sale deed dated 23.02.1959 (Ex.A14).

10. The plaintiffs' case is that the East-West measurement of the property is shown as 36 feet in the sale deed. However, the East-West measurement of the plaintiffs