POINT OF LAW:TITLE OF PROPERTY - Defendant did not prove that his vendors were in actual and continuous enjoyment of the suit properties and thereafter, they passed title to the defendant by executing a sale deed in his favour. The Trial Court has held that the plaintiffs were not able to produce sufficient documents to get the relief of declaration of his title. Neither the defendant was in a better position to claim title or possession over the suit property

JUDGMENT :-

(Prayer: The Second Appeal filed under Section 100 of C.P.C., against the Judgement and Decree dated 23.12.2008 made in A.S.No.45 of 2006 on the file of the Sub Court, Maduranthakam confirming the judgement and decree dated 30.03.2005 made in O.S.No.234 of 1997 on the file of the District Munsif Court, Maduranthakam.)

1. This Second Appeal has been filed against the Judgement and Decree dated 23.12.2008 passed in A.S.No.45 of 2006 on the file of the Sub Court, Maduranthakam confirming the judgement and decree dated 30.03.2005 passed in O.S.No.234 of 1997 on the file of the District Munsif Court, Maduranthakam and to set aside the same.

2. The Appellant is the defendant.

The short facts of the plaintiffs’ case are as under:

3. The suit property is the service Inam land originally classified as 'Vetti Maniam' and the same had been given to the plaintiffs’ forefathers. After the demise of their forefather Thulukkanam, the patta was transferred to their name in Patta No.335. From then onwards, they were in enjoyment of the same by paying kist. The defendant has no manner of right or title in the suit property but he is causing threat to the plaintiffs enjoyment. On 18.08.1997 also, the defendant made an attempt to trespass into the suit property and the plaintiffs resisted it. Hence this suit is filed for declaration of title and consequential Injunction.

The short facts of the defendant’s case are as under:

4. The suit property in Survey No.13/2 was originally owned by Thulukkanam (who is not the father of the plaintiffs and he is a different person), Mottai @ Thenan and one Angammal. The defendant purchased 0.90 cents out of 1.35 acres in Survey No.13/2 by virtue of a sale deed dated 07.04.1997 from the legal heirs of Thenan @ Mottai and Thulukkanam. The defendant was in possession and enjoyment of the suit property subsequent to his sale deed. The defendant has purchased 0.90 cents from the legal heirs of 2 sharers namely Thulukkanam and Mottai @ Thenan. The defendant’s vendors had dealt with the property by mortgaging the same and later the same was discharged. The plaintiffs have got no connection with Thulukkanam (as mentioned in the patta). The plaintiffs’ father Thulukkanam was working as a Revenue Official long ago, hence he managed to get a patta in his name fraudulently. The plaintiffs are not entitled to claim the relief and the suit has to be dismissed.

5. On the side of the plaintiffs, two witnesses were examined as P.W.1 & P.W.2 and EXs.A1 to A11 were marked. On the side of the defendant, 4 witnesses were examined as D.W.1 to D.W.4 and EXs.B1 to B8 were marked.

6. After the conclusion of the trial, the Trial Court partly decreed the suit in respect of relief of injunction and dismissed the suit in respect of the relief of declaration. The defendant challenged the same by way of filing the first appeal and the First Appellate Court also confirmed the judgement and decree of the Trial Court. However, the plaintiffs have not filed any cross appeal in respect of that portion of the relief of declaration which was denied to them. The second appeal has been admitted on the following substantial questions of law:

1. Whether the courts below have erred in holding that the plaintiffs are in possession of the suit property based on the documents which are rejected by the courts below, as not reliable for proof of title?

2. Whether the courts below have committed an error in granting a decree for injunction when the same has been sought for based on title and possession while negativing the plea for declaration of title?

7. So now the simple point for consideration before this Court is whether the Lower Court is correct in accepting the evidence of the plaintiffs in order to grant them the relief of permanent injunction. There is no dispute as to the classification of the property as Vetti Maniam. The Trial Court has extracted the evidence of D.W.2 in order to show that the defendant himself had permitted the possession and e