JUDGMENT :

R. SUBRAMANIAN, J.

Prayer: Second Appeal filed under Section 100 of C.P.C. to set aside the judgment and decree of the lower appellate court dated 26.07.2012 in A.S. No. 42 of 2008 on the file of the Principal Subordinate Judge, Tiruppur, confirming the judgment and decree dated 29.03.2007 in O.S. No. 106 of 2004 on the file of the District Munsif, Tiruppur.

1. The appellant who is a successor in interest of the defendant in O.S. No. 106 of 2004 having suffered a decree for permanent injunction restraining it from interfering with the plaintiff’s peaceful possession and enjoyment of the suit property and for costs at the hands of the courts below has come up with this Second Appeal.

2. The suit was laid by the 1st respondent claiming that the suit schedule properties situate at Nallur Village belong to one Sundaram Ponnusamy and others, they having purchased the same under a registered sale-deed dated 03.12.1981. They were in enjoyment of 50 cents of land in S. No. 181 of Nallur Village. The plaintiff purchased the said property under a registered sale-deed dated 12.02.1982 for a valid consideration of Rs. 10,850/-. She was also put in possession of the said property. Her name was also included as joint pattadhar by order of the Tahsildar, Tiruppur dated 18.02.1994. The said Vasanthakumari viz. the purchaser being a permanent resident of Chennai had executed a power of attorney in favour of one P.K. Ameetha on 20.10.2003 empowering her to deal with the property including the power of sale.

3. Pursuant to the said registered power of attorney, the said Ameetha, the Agent, sold an extent of 4800 sq. ft. in S. No. 181 of Nallur Village to one Krishnamoorthy under two sale-deeds dated 04.12.2003. The purchaser was also put in possession of the property. The present suit is laid by Vasanthakumari for the remaining extent of property.

4. According to the plaintiff, the land purchased by her along with other lands was laid out into house sites. The 1st defendant in the suit attempted to interfere with the possession of the plaintiff claiming that the suit site is a reserved site and it is meant for public purpose. It is also claimed that the 1st defendant had put up a board in the property stating that the same belongs to the Panchayat. On a complaint being made by the plaintiff to the Authorities, the Secretary to Government had requested the District Collector to inspect the property on 05.01.2004. The 1st defendant however was claiming that he would not allow the plaintiff to enjoy the property peacefully.

5. On 07.03.2004, the 2nd defendant attempted to trespass into the suit property. Since the 2nd defendant claimed that the attempted interference was at the instance of the 1st defendant, the plaintiff enquired with the 1st defendant as to the actions of the 2nd defendant. The 1st defendant however gave evasive reply. Hence, the plaintiff was forced to seek a decree for permanent injunction against the defendants.

6. The 1st defendant filed a written statement contending that the layout relating to S. Nos. 181 part, 182 part and 183 part of Nallur Village was approved in LP/R(CN) No. 3.82 and only 136 sites were approved as part of the layout by order dated 13.01.1982. Therefore, according to the 1st defendant, there was no site No. 142 in the layout formed in S. No. 181 of Nallur Village. It was also claimed that the averments in paragraph Nos. 3 to 6 are self-serving and the plaintiff was put to strict proof of the said averments.

7. It is also contended that as per the plan approved by the Senior Deputy Director of Town and Country Planning, Coimbatore dated 13.01.1982 a total extent of 12.27 acres was formed into a layout containing of 136 sites and common area of 3152.76 sq. m. provision for shops 261.97 sq. m. place for School and play ground measuring about 2195.76 sq. m. open area of 39.02 sq. m. and place for overhead tank and Well of 462.64 sq. m. Therefore, according to the defendant, the part of S. No. 181 purchase