The sufficiency and reliability of evidence presented by the parties to establish possession and enjoyment of the disputed land were crucial in determining the outcome of the case.

JUDGMENT :

(Prayer: Second Appeal has been filed under Section 100 of CPC against the Judgment and Decree dated 28.03.2008 passed in A.S.No.20 of 2007 on the file of the Subordinate Court, Cheyyar, in reversing the Judgment and Decree dated 20.04.2007 passed in O.S.No.56 of 1997 on the file of the Principal District Munsif Cum Judicial Magistrate Court, Vandavasi.)

1. Challenge in this second appeal is made to the Judgment and Decree dated 28.03.2008 passed in A.S.No.20 of 2007 on the file of the Subordinate Court, Cheyyar, reversing the Judgment and Decree dated 20.04.2007 passed in O.S.No.56 of 1997 on the file of the Principal District Munsif Cum Judicial Magistrate Court, Vandavasi.

2. For the sake of convenience, the parties are referred to as per their rankings in the trial Court.

3. The defendants 1,3 & 4 in O.S.No.56 of 1997 are the appellants in this second appeal.

4. Suit for Permanent Injunction.

5. The case of the plaintiff, in brief, is that the suit property is Eri Poramboke land and the plaintiff is in the possession and enjoyment of the same for more than 25 years by paying “B” memo charges from 1973 onwards and the plaintiff has constructed a hut in the suit property and been running a tea shop therein and also residing in the same premises and enjoying the same by obtaining the service connection, which stands in the name of his father. The defendants 1 to 4 by using force interfered with the plaintiff’s possession and enjoyment of the suit property without any authority and hence, according to the plaintiff, he has been necessitated to lay the suit against the defendants 1 to 4 for the relief of permanent injunction.

6. The defendants 1 to 4 resisted the plaintiff’s suit contending that the plaintiff’s suit is not maintainable either in law or on facts and disputed the case of the plaintiff that he has been in the possession and enjoyment of the suit property for several years as claimed in the plaint by paying “B” memo charges, putting up hut, obtaining service connection, etc., According to the defendants, the plaintiff has never been in the possession and enjoyment of the suit property and the plaintiff has no cause of action to lay the suit and the defendants would substantiate their possession and enjoyment of the suit property during the course of trial by producing necessary documents and accordingly, prayed for the dismissal of the plaintiff’s suit.

7. In support of the plaintiff’s case, PWs1 & 2 were examined and Exs.A1 to A39 were marked. On the side of the defendants, DWs1 to 3 were examined and Exs.B1 to B9 were marked. CW1 was also examined and Ex.C1 was also marked.

8. On a consideration of the oral and documentary evidence adduced in the matter and the submissions put forth by the respective parties, the trial Court was pleased to dismiss the plaintiff’s suit. On appeal preferred by the plaintiff, the first appellate Court, on an appreciation of the materials available on record and the submissions projected by the respective parties, was pleased to entertain the appeal preferred by the plaintiff and thereby, setting aside the judgment and decree of the trial Court and granted the relief in favour of the plaintiff as prayed for against the defendants. Impugning the same, the defendants 1, 3 and 4 have preferred the second appeal.

9. At the time of admission of the second appeal, the following substantial questions of law were formulated for consideration:

“1. Whether the lower appellate Court has failed to appreciate the testimony of the Advocate Commissioner along with the Report and Plan in proper perspective and the finding with regard to the suit property is vitiated.

2. Whether the lower appellate Court has failed to consider the oral and documentary evidence in proper perspective and the finding is vitiated.”

10. It is seen that the suit property is the Eri Poramboku land belonging to the Government. Now, both the plaintiff and the contesting defendants are vying with each other for claiming the po