The plaintiff's right to seek the relief of permanent injunction and the maintainability of the suit were established based on the overwhelming evidence of ownership, possession, and enjoyment of the suit properties.

JUDGMENT

T. Ravindran, J. - Challenge in this second appeal is made to the Judgement and Decree dated 31.03.2005 passed in A.S.No.92 of 2004 on the file of the Subordinate Court, Mettur, confirming the judgement and decree dated 26.10.2004 passed in O.S.No.295 of 2000 on the file of the District Munsif's Court, Mettur.

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

3. Suit for Permanent Injunction.

4. The case of the plaintiff, in brief, is that she had purchased the suit properties by virtue of the two registered sale deeds dated 20.03.1980 and 14.03.1984 and thence from, enjoying the suit properties by retaining the same in her possession and enjoyment and recognising her possession and enjoyment of the suit properties, the Government had also issued a patta in favour of the plaintiff on 24.06.1984 in patta No.208 and it is only the plaintiff, who is paying the kist for the suit properties and the adangal extract also depict the name of the plaintiff as the cultivator of the suit properties and thus, the suit properties are in her exclusive possession and enjoyment and other thanthe plaintiff, no one including the defendants have any right, title or interest in respect of the suit properties. While so, the defendants, who are having their lands nearby the suit properties, having got no manner of right and title to the suit properties, falling in their efforts to acquire the portion of the suit properties at a low price as the same was refused by the plaintiff and thereby, are attempting to trespass into the suit properties to form a pathway on the southern end of survey No.307/4D1, however, the plaintiff has prevented the abovesaid unlawful acts of the defendants with the help of the neighbours and elders of the village and the acts of the defendants continue to persist and thereby, they are attempting to disturb the possession and enjoyment of the plaintiff in respect of the suit properties, particularly, they are endeavouring to create a pathway in survey No.307/4D1, hence according to the plaintiff, she has been necessitated to lay the suit for the relief of permanent injunction.

5. The case of the defendants is that the suit laid by the plaintiff is not maintainable either in law or on facts. It is false to state that the plaintiff has purchased the suit properties in entirety covered under patta No.208 as put forth in the plaint and according to them, one Valliammal wife of Soligounder is a joint pattadhar in respect of survey No.307/4D1 and Valliammal, after retaining 4 cents of land in the abovesaid survey number for the purpose of pathway, sold the remaining extent of theproperties in the abovesaid survey number to the plaintiff and suppressing the abovesaid facts, the plaintiff had obtained the patta in respect of the entire extent available in survey No.307/4D1 by excluding Valliammal and Valliammal, thereby, preferred an application before the Tahsildar, Mettur for including her name in the patta and her name was subsequently jointly recorded in patta No.208, as per the order dated 27.07.1992 and accordingly, the revenue records also depict the name of Valliammal as the joint title holder in respect of survey No.307/4D1 and therefore, the claim of the plaintiff that she is in the exclusive possession and enjoyment of the properties comprised in survey No.307/4D1 is false. On the other hand, on the southern extremity of the abovesaid survey , there is already a cart track in existence over an extent of 4 cents of land and therefore, the claim of the plaintiff that the defendants are attempting to create a new pathway in the southern extremity of survey No.307/4D1 is false and put forth for inventing a cause of action falsely and the plaintiff's vendor Valliammal possessed 2.73 acres in Old survey No.307/4 as per the sale deed of the year 1959 and after selling the lands to the plaintiff in survey No.307/4D1, she had retained 4 cents of land and subsequently, Valliam