JUDGMENT :

Prayer: Second Appeal is filed under Section 100 of the Civil Procedure Code, against the judgment and decree dated 30.07.2009 made in A.S.No.11 of 2007 on the file of the Sub Court, Cheyyar, in confirming the judgment and decree dated 29.12.2006 made in O.S.No.183 of 2003 on the file of the Additional District Munsif Court, Vandavasi.

1. This appeal is focused as against the judgment and decree dated 30.07.2009 made in A.S.No.11 of 2007 on the file of the learned Subordinate Judge, Cheyyar, confirming the judgment and decree dated 29.12.2006 made in O.S.No.183 of 2003 on the file of the learned Additional District Munsif, Vandavasi.

2. For the sake of convenience, hereinafter the parties are referred to, as per their litigative status before the trial Court.

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

[i] The plaintiff was the owner, he has right and title over the suit property. The defendant is the neighbouring land owner. The plaintiff had purchased the suit property on 25.05.1996 and thereafter, he had been enjoying the suit property, without any hindrance from others. He had been enjoying the suit property 20 years prior to the sale. The defendant has no right or title over the suit property. He owns a land situated on the eastern side of the suit property. On 05.12.2002, the defendant had cut the trees, which was situated on the western ridge of the plaintiff's land and it was duly complained to the Police. Now, he has further attempted to interfere with the plaintiff's peaceful possession. Hence, the suit.

4. The case of the defendant, as averred in the written statement, is as follows:

[i] It is false to state that the plaintiff had been enjoying the suit property for more than 25 years. Under the U.D.R. Scheme, the plaintiff's name had been wrongly entered in the patta. Based on the patta, the plaintiff cannot claim any right over the suit property. The defendant had purchased 1.04-¼ acres of land from the total extent of 1.39 acres. The property purchased by the defendant was surrounded on the South by lake, on the North by the plaintiff's land, on the East by Ramakrishnan and Adhimoolam lands and on the West by Krishnan's land.

[ii] The defendant has purchased his land vide Sale Deed dated 11.12.1995. The plaintiff's vendor has also attested the defendant's Sale Deed. The defendant's vendor had been enjoying the said land for a number of years and thereby, the defendant has right and title over the same. Neither the plaintiff nor his vendor had enjoyed the suit property. The plaintiff's vendor had been enjoying only the land measuring an extent of 0.34-¼ cents, which was situated on the western side of the defendant's land by cutting mulveli trees and other trees. The defendant alone cultivated the land measuring an extent of 1.04-¼ acres and therefore, the plaintiff is not entitled to any relief as prayed for in the plaint. Hence, the suit filed by the plaintiff is liable for dismissal with compensatory costs.

5. From the above averments, the learned Additional District Munsif, Vandavasi, framed necessary issues and tried the suit. In support of the plaintiff's case, 4 witnesses were examined as P.W.1 to P.W.4 and 24 exhibits were marked as Ex.A.1 to Ex.A.24. Similarly, on the side of the defendant, 4 witnesses were examined as D.W.1 to D.W.4 and 4 exhibits were marked, as Ex.B.1 to Ex.B.4.

6. Having considered the materials placed before him, the learned Additional District Munsif, Vandavasi, by judgment and decree dated 29.12.2006, came to the conclusion that the plaintiff has not proved his case and ultimately, dismissed the suit filed by the plaintiff. In the appeal preferred by the plaintiff in A.S.No.11 of 2007, the learned Subordinate Judge, Cheyyar, had confirmed the findings arrived at by the trial Court and thereby, dismissed the appeal.

7. Feeling aggrieved over the findings arrived at by the lower appellate Court, the plaintiff, is before this Court with the present Second Appeal. Th