JUDGMENT :

ABDUL QUDDHOSE, J.

Prayer in S.A. No. 632 of 1999: Second Appeal filed under Section 100 of Civil Procedure Code against the decree and judgment of the II Additional Appellate Court and II Additional District Judge, Coimbatore dated 31.08.1998 and passed in A.S. No. 124/1997 confirming the decree and judgment of the Principal District Munsif Coimbatore, dated 01.04.1997 and passed in O.S. No. 756 of 1991.

S.A. No. 633 of 1999: Second Appeal filed under Section 100 of Civil Procedure Code against the decree and judgment of the II Additional Appellate Court, II Additional Appellate Court and II Additional District Judge, Coimbatore dated 31.08.1998 and passed in A.S. No. 123/1997 confirming the decree and judgment of the Principal District Munsif Coimbatore, dated 01.04.1997 and passed in O.S. No. 2747 of 1990.

1. These Second Appeals have been filed challenging the concurrent findings of the Courts below.

2. The appellant is the plaintiff in the suit O.S. No. 2747 of 1990 on the file of District Munsif Court, Coimbatore. The said suit was filed for permanent injunction against the respondents to restrain them from interfering with the appellant’s peaceful possession and enjoyment of the property at Kallapatti Village, Survey No. 337/1 measuring an extent of 4.02 acres, hereinafter referred to as the “suit schedule property.”

3. The respondents are the defendants in the said suit. The respondents Nos. 1 and 2 have also filed a separate suit in O.S. No. 756 of 1991 against the appellant before the very same District Munsif Court at Coimbatore seeking for the very same relief of permanent injunction for the very same suit property.

4. The case of the appellant who is the plaintiff in O.S. No. 2747 of 1990 is that he is the son-in-law of Narayanasamy Naidu, who had sold the suit schedule property to him under a registered sale deed dated 16.04.1981 (Ex.A2). According to the appellant, even after the death of his father-in-law Narayanasamy Naidu, the appellant and Narayanasamy’s Naidu’s son continued to pay the Kist for the suit schedule property to the Government and they are in possession of the suit schedule property. However, it is the case of the appellant that the original of the sale deed dated 16.04.1981 executed in his favour was retained by his father-in-law Narayanasamy Naidu. It is the case of the plaintiff that in the schedule to the sale deed dated 16.04.1981, due to a typographical error, the survey number was wrongly mentioned as GS No. 338 instead of G.S. No. 337. It is the case of the appellant that he had also requested his brother-in-law i.e. Narayansamy’s son, his vendor to rectify the mistake. Since, he did not come forward to rectify the mistake, it is the case of the appellant that he was forced to file a suit O.S. No. 807 of 1990 against Narayansamy’s son N. Selvaraj for the purpose of rectifying the mistake with regard to the survey number in the schedule to the sale deed dated 16.04.1981. It is also the case of the appellant that a judgment and decree dated 26.07.1990 was passed in his favour in O.S. No. 807 of 1990 filed against the appellant’s brother-in-law (son of the deceased Narayanasamy Naidu). According to the appellant, he has been put in possession of the suit schedule property ever since 16.04.1981 when the sale deed was executed and registered in his favour.

5. It is the case of the appellant that the respondents/defendants interfered with his peaceful possession and enjoyment of the suit schedule property by attempting to tresspass into the said property and by attempting to lay out the same as plots. According to the appellant, the respondents are total strangers to the suit schedule property.

6. However, it is the case of the respondents, who are the defendants in the suit O.S. No. 2747 of 1990 and the plaintiffs in the suit O.S. No. 756 of 1991 that they are the absolute owners of the suit schedule property. According to them, the appellant is a meddler and an interloper and is a total st