JUDGMENT :

J. Nisha Banu, J.

1. This appeal has been filed by the plaintiff/appellant against the judgment and decree passed by the Court below, dismissing the suit for declaration, permanent and mandatory injunctions.

2. For better appreciation and understanding, the parties are referred to as per their in rank in the suit.

3. The case of the plaintiff is that the suit property is a house site comprised in Survey No. 502/10 and he has purchased the same from one Palaniyappa Asari through his Power Agent under registered sale deed 21.08.1995 (Ex. A1). A vast extent of land i.e., 110 Kurukkams of land, including the suit land, was originally purchased by Thiyagarajan Chettiar, Meiyappa Chettiar and Alagappa Chettiar under a registered sale deed dated 10.08.1908 (Ex. A6) from Kottaiyur Nadars and they formed a Village called Jeyangondapuram in the said land by making house sites, streets, Oorani, temple, agraharam, etc. From the said three Chettiars, one Somasundaram Chettiar had purchased 3/16 share in 110 Kurukkams of land under a registered sale deed dated 16.11.1910 (Ex. A5) and kept as house sites, in which the suit property is a part of house site. Thereafter, one Alamelu Aachi purchased the suit property from the son of Somasundaram Chettiar by name Annamalai Chettiar under registered sale deed dated 06.07.1962 (Ex. A4). At the time of purchase by Alamelu Aachi, there was a building in dilapidated condition and hence, the suit property was registered as vacant site. Subsequently, one Chidambaram purchased the suit property from the said Alamelu Aachi under a registered sale deed dated 10.02.1969 (Ex. A3). Thereafter, the immediate predecessor in title of the plaintiff by name Palaniyappa Asari purchased the property through his Power Agent by a registered sale deed dated 18.11.1986 (Ex. A2). The suit schedule property is a natham house site. At the time of purchase of the plaintiff, there was a dilapidated building and a small thatched roof in the suit property. The plaintiff rented out the said thatched roof to one Ramasamy. In the year 1998, the plaintiff constructed a building as N.M.R. Complex consisting of 10 shops in the suit property and let out the shops for rent. The plaintiff had been paying land tax before the construction and building tax after the construction to the Karaikudi Municipality. The plaintiff has mortgaged the property in favour of Syndicate Bank and borrowed a sum of Rs. 4.5 lakhs in the year 2005. Thus, he has been in possession and enjoyment of the suit property without any interruption.

4. It is the further case of the plaintiff that during the period of settlement, the suit property was wrongly classified as "Oorani". Hence, the petitioner had filed a petition before the Assistant Settlement Officer to correct the error. The Assistant Settlement Officer had inspected the suit property and he granted patta on 05.02.1996 holding that the suit property has been wrongly classified. In the year 2003, the then Sub Collector, Devakottai and Tahsildar, Karaikudi had directed the plaintiff to vacate the suit property stating that it is an Oorani Poramboke and threatened to demolish the building. Hence, the plaintiff had filed a writ petition in W.P. No. 17576 of 2003 before this Court. By order dated 04.11.2003, this Court directed the defendants not to evict the plaintiff except under due process of law. The Revenue Divisional Officer, Sivagangai, issued a notice dated 24.03.2006 to the plaintiff, for which the plaintiff has submitted his explanations dated 19.05.2006 and 29.06.2006. Then, the plaintiff did not receive any order or any notice from the said authority. While so, on 12.10.2008, the 2nd defendant called the plaintiff over phone and directed to bring all the documents relating to patta issued by the Assistant Settlement Officer to the Taluk Office, Karaikudi. Accordingly, the petitioner went to the Office. At that time, the 2nd and 3rd defendants told him that the patta granted to him is not v