Point of Law: Whereas no extent was mentioned for resurvey 111/7. Sale deed was dated 27.10.1981. Even at time of purchasing suit property by Gnanadhas , resurvey of property has been mentioned in Ex.A3 sale deed. Definetly the father of the appellants namely Gnanadhas should have knowledge of the resurvey

JUDGMENT :

Prayer: This Second Appeal has been filed under Section 100 of Civil Procedure Code, against the judgement and decree dated 01.12.2004 passed in A.S.No.130 of 2002 by the Sub Court, Padmanabhapuram, confirming the judgment and decree dated 05.07.2002 passed in O.S.No.288 of 1999 by the Additional District Munsif Court, Padmanabhapuram.

1. Challenge in this second appeal is to the judgement and decree, dated 01.12.2004 passed in Appeal Suit No.130/2002 by the sub court, Padmanabhapuram, wherein the judgement and decree passed in O.S.No. 288 of 1999 by the Additional District Munsif Court, Padmanabhapuram are confirmed.

2. The Appellants have instituted the O.S.No.288 of 1999 on the file of the trial court for the reliefs of declaration of title, possession and injunction and recovery of 'B' scheduled wooden logs removed from 'A' scheduled property.

3. In the plaint, it is averred that the plaintiffs are owners of 54 cents in old S.No.651/c, Kothanaloor village. The 'A' schedule is 5 cents out of 54 cents on the southern end.

4. On 27.10.1981 the suit 'A' schedule property was purchased by Gnanadhas who is the husband of the first plaintiff and the father of the plaintiffs 2 to 4 from Raja Bhai. Even prior to his purchase, long prior to 1975, the plaintiffs predecessors in title have planted arecanut, coconut and anjali, jack and other trees in the suit property. The 54 cents plot is lying in 4 plots wherein the suit 'A' schedule property is the southern most portion. There is a small vaikkal further south of the plaint 'A' schedule property. The vendor of the first plaintiff’s husband, the husband of the first plaintiff and the plaintiffs have been enjoying the property upto the water-course portion of the vaikkal by planting trees as absolute owners and by effecting valuable improvements. The first plaintiff’s husband’s predecessors in title have planted one anjali tree long prior to 1975 and the plaintiffs and their predecessors in title have been in possession and enjoyment of the tree among the other trees. On 14.01.1988, the husband of the first plaintiff died leaving the plaintiffs as his heirs. In the resurvey and settlement, old survey 651/c is correlated to R.S.No.111/1 to 14. No notice was given to the vendors or to the plaintiffs. The re-survey authorities have no right to reduce the 54 cents property of the plaintiffs and to add along with the vaikkal on south. The wrong resurvey, which was done by the resurvey authorities and the resurvey plan will not affect the right, title, possession and enjoyment of the plaintiffs over the 54 cents area purchased by them in old survey 651/c. The remaining properties are recorded as vaikkal poramboke. The property upto the water-course is the patta land. The state of Tamilnadu has no right, title or possession over the A schedule property or on the Northern property. On 13.11.1999, the first plaintiff with an object of using the above stated anjali tree for putting up of a house, cut the same. The logs of wood were placed near the house of plaintiffs. Upon a false information to the second respondent, without ascertaining the limit of the plaintiff’s property brought a tempo and took all the logs of the tree and arrested the second plaintiff. At Thuckalay police station, the second plaintiff was compelled to put the signature in a blank paper. The action of the second respondent is highly illegal and he has exceeded his power in taking away the logs of wood of the anjali tree of plaintiffs. Under the said circumstances, the present suit has been instituted by the plaintiffs.

5. In the written statement filed on the side of the defendants, it is averred that it is false to contend that Resurvey No.111/7 is a patta land in the name of Gnanadhas and on the south, there is a vaikkal comprised in Resurvey No.111/15. The cultivation on the southern side of the property are only recent. The anjali trees were natural grownup trees only in the vaikkal bund. Even according to the pl