The court emphasized the importance of establishing valid title and possession in property disputes, and upheld the lower courts' decisions based on the proper appreciation of evidence.

JUDGMENT :

Prayer: Second Appeal filed under Section 100 of C.P.C., against the judgment and decree dated 09.08.2006 made in A.S.No.59 of 2005 on the file of the Court of the Principal Subordinate Judge, Thiruvannamalai, confirming the judgment and decree dated 26.04.2005 made in O.S.No.82 of 1999 on the file of the Court of the Additional District Munsif, Chengam.

1. Challenge in this second appeal is made to the judgment and decree dated 09.08.2006 passed in A.S.No.59 of 2005 on the file of the Principal Subordinate Court, Thiruvannamalai, confirming the judgment and decree dated 26.04.2005 passed in O.S.No.82 of 1999 on the file of the Additional District Munsif Court, Chengam.

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

3. The defendants in O.S.No.82 of 1999 are the appellants in this second appeal.

4. Suit for declaration and permanent injunction.

5. In this matter, only notice of admission has been ordered and the second appeal has not been admitted.

6. Briefly stated the case of the plaintiff is that the suit property is the self acquired property of one Venkatasami Reddiar and the plaintiff had purchased the same from him by way of a sale deed dated 22.11.1985 and since then it is only the plaintiff who has been in the possession and enjoyment of the suit property by obtaining patta, paying Kists etc., and the defendants without any manner of right, title or interest over the suit property, endeavored to disturb his possession and enjoyment of the suit property. Hence the suit has come to be laid by the plaintiff for appropriate relief.

7. The defendants resisted the plaintiff's suit and after denying the claim of the plaintiff's title, possession and enjoyment of the suit property as putforth in the plaint, has putforth the case that the suit property and other properties are the joint family properties of the defendants and their father by way of a partition deed dated 20.09.1981. The suit property had been allotted to the share of the first defendant and since then it is only the first defendant who has been in the enjoyment of the suit property by obtaining patta, paying Kists etc., Therefore, according to the defendants, the plaintiff has no cause of action to lay the suit and the suit is liable to be dismissed.

8. In support of the plaintiff's case, P.Ws.1 to 4 were examined. Exs.A1 to A19 were marked. On the side of the defendants, D.Ws.1 and 2 were examined. Exs.B1 to B6 were marked. Exs.C1 and C2 were also marked.

9. On a consideration of the oral and documentary evidence adduced by the respective parties and the submissions made, the Courts below were pleased to decree the suit in favour of the plaintiff as prayed for. Impugning the same, the second appeal has been preferred by the defendants.

10. From the pleas and materials placed on record and the submissions putforth by the respective parties, it is found that the plaintiff claims title to the suit property by way of the sale deed dated 22.11.1985 marked as Ex.A1 and the plaintiff's vendor one Venkatasami Reddiar claims title to the suit property by way of an assignment. It is seen that the suit has been originally laid by the plaintiff declaring that the suit property lies in S.No.60/1A consisting of 48 cents within specific boundaries as recited in Ex.A1. Pending suit, after the Advocate Commissioner had inspected the suit property with the help of the surveyor, who noted that the survey number has been wrongly mentioned/furnished and hence the plaintiff has preferred the petition to amend the plaint for altering the said suit survey number from 60/1A to 60/1B and the same had been entertained. As against the said order, no further challenge has been made by the defendants before the higher forum. Therefore, it is seen that the plaintiff claims title to the suit property consisting of 48 cents in S.No.60/1B within the specific boundaries. As rightly held by the Courts below, considering the revenue document