JUDGMENT :

Prayer: The Second Appeal is filed under Section 100 of C.P.C. against the Judgment and Decree made in A.S.No.9 of 2010 dated 30.04.2010 on the file of I Additional Subordinate Judge at Salem, reversing the judgment and decree dated 08.10.2009 in O.S.No.656 of 2007 on the file of the I Additional District Munsif at Salem.

1. The second appeal is focused as against the Judgment and Decree dated 30.04.2010 passed in A.S.No.9 of 2010 by the learned I Additional Subordinate Judge, Salem, reversing the Judgment and Decree dated 08.10.2009 passed in O.S.No.656 of 2007 by the learned I Additional District Munsif, Salem.

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

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

3.1. The plaintiff and the defendant Nos.1 to 3 are adjacent land owners. The first defendant is the mother of the second and third defendants. The defendants are belonging to the Adi Dravidar Community.

3.2. The suit property, which is an agricultural land situated at Anuppoor village is originally belonged to the plaintiff’s mother Vengammal. She purchased the same vide registered sale deed dated 02.05.1960 executed by one Abubhakkar and Munian. After made purchase, parents of the plaintiff enjoyed the suit property without any interruption. After the demise of the plaintiff’s parents, the property owned by the plaintiff’s family was partitioned between themselves vide compromise decree dated 11.08.2003 passed in O.S.No.236 of 2003 on the file of the I Additional District Munsif, Salem and accordingly, the suit property was allotted to the plaintiff.

3.3. The defendants are the adjacent land owners and their property is hereditary in nature. The defendants 1 to 3 are not having any right or title over the suit property owned by the plaintiff. On 24.04.1998, there was a dispute happened between the plaintiff and the defendants in respect of the suit property and the first defendant gave a written complaint before the Karippatty Police. Thereafter, the said issue was settled between the plaintiff and the defendants. After passing of 9 years, on 21.03.2007 again the defendants are attempted to trespass and encroach the suit property. Hence, again the plaintiff gave a written complaint before the Police on 21.03.2007. In this regard, the Police advised the defendants to measure the property through Revenue authorities and fix the boundaries. Instead of taking necessary steps to measure the property, on 12.05.2007, the defendants trespassed into the plaintiff’s property on the eastern side and put up a temporary fence. When the plaintiff attempted to demolish the temporary fence, the defendants with the help of rowdy elements threatened the plaintiff that they will lodge a complaint before the Police under ‘Untouchability Act’. Hence, the present suit has been filed for the relief of permanent injunction restraining the defendants 1 to 3, their men from interfering with the plaintiff’s peaceful possession and enjoyment over the suit schedule property.

4. The averments found in the written statement filed by the first defendant and adopted by the second and third defendants are as follows:

4.1. It is false to state that the suit property was purchased by the plaintiff’s mother Vengammal from one Abubhakkar and Munian. The plaintiff’s parents have not enjoyed the suit property continuously. Further, it is not admitted by the defendants that the plaintiff is in the continuous possession and enjoyment of the suit property. The plaintiff alone is unlawfully tried to occupy the 0.13 cents of the defendants’ lands and thereby the defendants have put up the fence between the plaintiff’s land and the defendants’ lands. Now the plaintiff is trying to alienate the 0.13 cents, which is in the possession and enjoyment of the defendants and that is only the dispute. It is not correct to state that on 21.03.2007, the defendants made an attem