JUDGMENT :

(Prayer: Second Appeal filed under Section 100 of Civil Procedure Code against the judgment and decree of the Principal District Munsif, A.S. No.55/2004, dated 19.09.2006 confirming the judgment and decree of the Principal District Munsif, Karaikal in O.S. No.205 of 2002, dated 13.08.2004.)

(Heard Video Conference)

1. This Second Appeal has been filed challenging the concurrent findings of the Courts below.

2. The appellant is the defendant in the suit O.S. No.205 of 2002 on the file of the Principal District Munsif at Karaikal and the respondent is the plaintiff.

3. Henceforth, the respective parties are described as per their litigative status in the suit.

4. The plaintiff filed the suit against the defendant for permanent injunction restraining them from interfering with his possession and enjoyment of the suit schedule property.

5. According to the plaintiff, he is in possession of the suit schedule property measuring 220 kuzhies, pursuant to a written agreement of sale for one half of the property and an oral agreement of sale for the other half of the property.

6. According to the plaintiff under a partition deed of the year 1896, Ramu Pillai was allotted 110 kuzhies; Ramasamy was allotted 55 kuzhies and Radhakrishnan was allotted 55 kuzhies.

7. It is the case of the plaintiff that under an oral agreement, dated 07.01.1976, he was put in possession of 110 kuzhies by Ramadoss, who according to him is the descendant of Ramu Pillai.

8. The plaintiff has also pleaded in the plaint that under a written agreement of sale, dated 13.01.1976, Ramasamy had agreed to sell 55 kuzhies and put him in possession of the said property. According to the plaintiff, he is in possession of the entire suit schedule property measuring 220 kuzhies. However, it is the case of the plaintiff that by mistake at the time of re-survey in the year 1974, the extent of 220 kuzhies, which is the suit schedule property was classified as a Government poromboke land. According to the plaintiff, the defendant by treating the suit schedule property as a burning ghat made an attempt to annexe the suit schedule property by putting a compound wall and only in such circumstances, he was constrained to file the subject suit.

9. However, it is the case of the defendant as seen from their written statement that the suit property is a Government property. According to them, the suit property is protected with a compound wall on all four sides with a provision of pathway to go to Vannankulam for the public to perform their customary rites while cremating the dead bodies belonging to their families.

10. It is their case that right from the beginning the suit schedule property was classified only as a Government poromboke land. The defendant has also denied that the plaintiff is in possession of the suit schedule property.

11. Issues were framed by the Trial Court and after trial, the suit O.S. No.205 of 2002 was decreed in favour of the plaintiff by a judgment and decree dated 13.08.2004 passed by the Principal District Munsif Court, Karaikal in O.S. No.205 of 2002.

12. The Trial Court gave the following findings while decreeing the suit in favour of the plaintiff:

a) Plaintiff has proved his title by way of six documents, which included the notorial partition of the year 1896, the sale agreement dated 13.01.1976 and the oral sale agreement dated 07.01.1976.

b) During re-survey, the suit schedule property has been classified as a cremation centre. The said classification was done by the Government without notice to the Plaintiff.

c) Plaintiff is right in claiming title and recovery of possession, since the defendant has forcibly evicted the Plaintiff.

d) Defendant without waiting for outcome of re-survey dispute has constructed compound wall and forcibly evicted the Plaintiff.

e) Re-survey R.S.No.113/5 corelates with 560 bis and 562 pt and the extent also tallies. But as per the revenue records, the extent differs. The title claimed under Exs.B2 and B3 is not valid.

e) Plaintif