JUDGMENT :

(Prayer : This Memorandum of Second Appeal is filed under Section 100 of Code of Civil Procedure, against the Judgment and decree dated 15.04.2009 made in A.S.No.27 of 2008 on the file of the Sub Court, Madurantagam, modifying the judgment and decree dated 16.12.2006 made in O.S.No.441 of 2004 on the file of the District Munsif Court, Madurantagam.)

1. The defendants in O.S.No.411 of 2004 on the file of the learned District Munsif, Madurantagam, are the appellants herein. Before the said Court, the respondent in this appeal filed the above referred suit as against the appellants, seeking the relief of declaration, declaring that the plaintiff is the absolute owner of ‘B’ schedule property and for granting consequential permanent injunction.

2. By judgment and decree dated 16.12.2006, the learned District Munsif, Madurantagam, allowed the suit in part, wherein the relief of declaration has been granted. In respect to the relief of injunction, the learned District Munsif, Madurantagam, dismissed the suit.

3. Aggrieved over the said finding, the plaintiff preferred an appeal in A.S.No.27 of 2008 before the learned Subordinate Judge, Madurantagam. By judgment and decree dated 15.04.2009, the learned Subordinate Judge, Madurantagam, allowed the suit with entirety and granted the relief of permanent injunction.

4. Feeling aggrieved over the judgment and decree dated 15.04.2009 made in A.S.No.27 of 2008, the defendants in the suit have preferred the present second appeal.

5. For the sake of convenience, hereinafter, the appellants 1 to 4 are called as ‘Defendants’ and the respondent is called as ‘Plaintiff’.

6. The laconic averments made in the plaint, are as follows:

(i) The suit properties are the ancestral properties of one Palani, further the same was classified as natham lands for which patta was not issued prior to natham survey. During natham survey, the Government recognising the possession of the said Palani, issued patta dated 14.11.2002. The plaintiff had purchased the suit properties from the said Pazhani and since from the date of purchase, she is in the possession and enjoyment of those properties.

(ii) The plaintiff claims that she and her predecessors-in-title had prescribed title in the suit property by adverse possession also. The defendants by taking advantage that the plaintiff belongs to minority community, attempted to trespass into the property. Infact the plaintiff has declined the offer made by the defendants in purchasing the suit properties. Therefore, an attempt was made on 03.04.2012 by the defendants to trespass into ‘B’ schedule properties. Hence, in order to prevent the same, the plaintiff filed the present suit.

7. The case of the defendants, as averred in the written statement is as follows:

(i) The suit properties are classified as ‘Meyakkal porambokke’, over which neither the plaintiff nor her predecessors-in-title have got any right. The question of granting patta is pending before the Revenue Divisional Officer, Madurantagam, now he is conducting enquiry. The possession of the suit properties lies with the villagers. During festival time and on other auspicious days, the villagers conducted ‘Maadu Virattu’ and other temple festivals in the suit land. Public functions also would be held in the suit schedule property. There is a building belonging to the Women’s Self Help group as well as a community hall situated in ‘Meyakkal Porambokke’. These buildings were constructed on the basis of the resolution passed by the Panchayat in the year 1990.

(ii) The grant of patta is illegal. It would not confer any title on the plaintiff. There was a pathway leading to the burial ground and Palmyra trees were found available in the alleged suit property. It is the property of the panchayat as well as the entire villagers, over which, the plaintiff cannot claim any right. Hence, the suit is liable to be dismissed with costs.

8. Based on the above said pleadings, the learned District Munsif, Madurantagam, framed