JUDGMENT :

(Prayer : Second Appeal is filed under Section 100 of C.P.C, to set aside the decree and judgment dated 10.08.2004 rendered in A.S.No.24 of 2002 on the file of the Subordinate Judge, Srivilliputhur, reversing the decree and judgment dated 27.11.2001 rendered in O.S.No.33 of 2000 on the file of the Additional District Munsif, Srivilliputhur.)

1. The plaintiff is the appellant herein.

2. The plaintiff filed O.S.No.33 of 2000 on the file of the Additional District Munsif Court, Srivilliputhur for the relief of declaration of title and permanent injunction. The suit was decreed as prayed for. Challenging the same, the defendant has filed A.S.No.24 of 2002 before the Sub Court, Srivilliputhur. The First Appellate Court allowed the appeal and dismissed the suit. As against the same, the plaintiff has filed the above second appeal.

3. The plaintiff had contended that he was originally allotted Plot No.6 in Survey No.328/3 by the Government of Tamil Nadu under Adidravidar Welfare Scheme by an order dated 18.01.1963. The plaintiff further contended that Plot No.18 was allotted to one Thangasamy who is the vendor of the defendant. The plaintiff instead of constructing his house in Plot No. 6, by mistake, constructed a house in Plot No.18 in the year 1965. According to the plaintiff, he has constructed in the northern half of the plot. The plaintiff further contended that he has obtained a revenue Patta for the said property to an extent of 5 cents. According to the plaintiff, the defendant approached the Adidravidar Welfare Department to evict the plaintiff. The District Revenue Officer, Ramnad had conducted an enquiry and he passed an order allotting Plot No.18 to the plaintiff and cancelled the earlier allotment of Plot No.18 in favour of the said Thangasamy. Hence, the Thangasamy has no right, title or possession over Plot No.18. The said Thangasamy managed to get a joint patta in his favour. The plaintiff further contended that the Thangasamy has sold a portion of the suit schedule property to the defendant and the defendant started to disturb his possession and hence, the present suit for declaration of tile and permanent injunction.

4. The defendant filed a written statement contending that only the plaintiff has encroached over Plot No.18. It was originally allotted to his vendor namely Thangasamy. According to the defendant, the said Thangasamy had put up a thatched house in the western side of the suit property in year 1970. Hence, from the year 1970, the plaintiff was in possession of the northern half and the defendant's vendor Thagasamy was in possession of the Southern half of 5 cents in Plot No.18. The defendant further contended that the said Thagasamy has obtained house tax receipts for the thatched house and the said Thangasamy was in continuous possession of the said property. The defendant further contended that the plaintiff had filed O.S.No.37 of 1977 before the District Munsif Court, Srivilliputhur as against his vendor Thangasamy for the relief of declaration of title and permanent injunction. Pending suit, the plaintiff filed I.A.No. 344 of 1978 to amend the plaint to seek alternative prayer for recovery of possession. The said amendment application was allowed on 08.06.1978. Thereafter, the plaintiff had chosen to withdraw the suit with liberty to file a fresh suit within a period of six months. However, no suit was filed within the said period and hence, the present suit is not maintainable. The revenue records got mutated in the name of the plaintiff without any notice to the said Thangasamy or the defendant. The defendant further contended that he had purchased the southern half of 2 ½ cents in Plot No.18 and has put up a thatched house in the wester half and the eastern half is used as a dumping yard by the defendant. The defendant further contended that he is a bona fide purchaser for a valuable consideration and he had purchased the property relying upon the joint patta in the name of the plaintiff a