JUDGMENT :-

(Prayer: Second Appeal filed under Section 100 of the Code of Civil Procedure against the judgment and decree, dated 17.03.2020 passed in A.S.No.29 of 2019, on the file of the Subordinate Court, Manapparai, confirming the judgment and decree dated 06.11.2019 passed in O.S.No.426 of 2014 on the file of the Additional District Munsif Court, Manapparai.)

1. The concurrent Judgments and decrees passed in O.S.No.426 of 2014 by the Additional District Munsif Court, Manapparai and in A.S.No.29 of 2019, by the Subordinate Court, Manapparai, are being challenged in the present Second Appeal.

2. The respondent/plaintiff has instituted a suit in O.S.No.426 of 2014 on the file of the trial Court for the relief of permanent injunction and to restrain the defendant, his men, agents and servant and all persons claiming through or under them from interfering with the plaintiff's peaceful possession and enjoyment of the suit 'A' schedule property either by trespassing into the suit 'A' schedule property or in any manner whatsoever and for declaration that the plaintiff is entitled to exercise free ingress and egress into the suit 'B' schedule property and right to use the motor pump set erected in the Well in the suit 'B' schedule property, wherein, the present appellant has been shown as defendant.

3. The case of the plaintiff is that the suit properties and other properties are the ancestral joint family properties and subsequently acquired out of the joint family nucleus. One Narayanasamy had two sons, namely, Ramasamy and Nallusamy and they were in possession and enjoyment of the entire properties. After his demise, the said Ramasamy, who is the father of the plaintiff, defendant, Lavunga Reddy and Ponnusamy and Nallusamy were in possession and enjoyment of the suit properties. The sons of Ramasamy and Nallusamy divided the entire joint family properties. In the partition, the land measuring an extent of 3 acres and 26 cents in Survey No.154/4 in Palayamkottai was allotted to the share of the plaintiff, Lavunga Reddy and Nallusamy and the lands in Inamrettiyapatti was allotted to the share of the defendant, Ponnusamy and Nallusamy. As per the said partition, the suit old S.F.No.154/4 was sub-divided into S.F.Nos.154/4A-Lavunga Reddy, 154/4B-suit 'A' schedule property, 154/4C-suit 'B' schedule property and 154/4D-Nallusamy. The suit 'A' schedule property described as S.F.No.154/4B was allotted to the share of the plaintiff, who was in possession and enjoyment of the same and also suit 'B' schedule property described as S.F.No.154/4C with other co-sharers are entitled to use motor pump set erected in the said property, which is in joint possession of all the brothers. When the plaintiff has taken steps to demarcate the suit properties with the help of revenue officials, the defendant has raised an objection and resisted the measurement of the suit properties. The defendant has also tried to trespass and interfere with the plaintiff's peaceful possession and enjoyment of the suit properties. The plaintiff further submits that the suit 'A' schedule property belongs to him and it was allotted to him in partition and the plaintiff has ingress and egress right and right to use the motor pump set in the suit 'B' schedule property and the defendant interfered with the said rights of the plaintiff. Hence, the plaintiff left with no other alternative remedy, has filed the suit.

4. The defendant filed a written statement denying all the averments made in the plaint and submitted that the plaintiff has no manner of exclusive right, title and possession over the suit properties and the suit properties are undivided Hindu Joint family properties. The defendant claimed that the plaintiff has not filed appropriate genealogy list. The defendant has also intended to file a suit for partition in respect of the suit properties. The defendant claimed that he was enjoying the suit properties along with others in common and further denied that the defendan