JUDGMENT :

(Prayer: This Memorandum of Second Appeal is filed under Section 100 of Code of Civil Procedure, against the Judgment and decree dated 29.03.2010 made in A.S.No.151 of 2008 on the file of the learned Subordinate Judge, Thiruchengode, reversing the judgment and decree dated 30.04.2008 made in O.S.No.189 of 2001 on the file of the District Munsif, Thiruchengode.)

1. The Second Appeal is focused as against the judgment and decree dated 29.03.2010 passed in A.S.No.151 of 2008 by the learned Subordinate Judge, Thiruchengode, in reversing the judgment and decree dated 30.04.2008, made in O.S.No.189 of 2001 by the learned District Munsif, Thiruchengode. The suit is for the relief of permanent injunction.

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 suit properties are originally natham lands in Survey No.102/3. The plaintiffs and their ancestors were residing therein along with their family members and plaintiffs have now shifted their residence to other place. As of now, there is a cattle shed in the 1st item of the suit schedule property. The plaintiffs stored their cattle feed and tethering their cattle in the suit schedule property. The Special Tahsildar of natham lands after recognising the plaintiffs possession issued patta in the name of the plaintiffs. When at the time of issuing patta, the suit schedule property was assigned with new Survey Number as 335/9 and 335/10. The plaintiff paid kist also.

(ii) The defendants are having their residential house on the East of the 1st item of the suit schedule property. There is also a vacant land on the East of the 2nd item of suit schedule property, which they have encroached. The defendant having succeeded in their ignoble goal and in avariciousness are planning to encroach the suit properties. They have no right to interfere with the plaintiffs- peaceful possession.

(iii) On 07.07.2001, the defendants attempted to trespass and encroach the suit properties. The plaintiffs managed the same. Now, the defendants openly proclaimed that they are going to come with large men and at any cost going to achieve their ignoble goal. Therefore, it would be necessary to grant a decree for permanent injunction, restraining the defendants in any way interfering with the plaintiffs- peaceful possession. Since the plaintiffs 1 and 2 are father and son and further, as they are not having any conflicting interest, they joined together and filed a single suit.

4. The averments found in the written statement filed by the 2nd defendant, are as follows:

(i) The suit properties does not belong to the plaintiffs. The same has been purchased by Kuppu Chettiar, the grandfather of the defendant herein. The said Kuppu Chettiyar has purchased the suit properties under a registered sale deed dated 29.06.1934, from one Nallaia Gounder, Vaiyapuri Gounder. Both are the sons of the Kutty Gounder. After his death, his second son Gurunatha Chettiyar was in the possession of the suit properties. When he shifted his family to some other place for want of livelihood, his son along with other brothers viz., Gurusamy, another Gurusamy and Kanagaraj, all jointly executed a unregistered sale deed in favour of the defendant herein on 22.12.1996. Therefore, the suit properties are the ancestral properties of the defendants herein.

(ii) From the date of purchase by the Kuppu Chettiyar, his successors-in-title are in possession and enjoyment of the suit schedule property continuously without any disturbance. Very often, the plaintiffs entered into the suit properties unlawfully and illegally and when they tried to put up a hut, the leading Goundars, including the President of Panchayat Board prevented the unlawful acts of the plaintiffs. Just two days back before filing this suit, the plaintiffs unlawfully trespassed into the suit property and put up a thatched shed in one night.