JUDGMENT :

This Second Appeal is preferred against the judgment and decree, dated 22.06.2016, passed in A.S.No.21/2007 on the file of IV Additional District Judge, Tiruvallur at Ponneri, reversing the judgment and decree, dated 11.10.2007, in O.S.No.170/2004 passed by the District Munsif-cum-Judicial Magistrate, Tiruvotriyur. First defendant is the appellant herein.

2. The case of the plaintiffs before the trial Court in a nutshell is as follows:

2.1. The plaintiffs, who have been struck off by the lower appellate Court, are the original plaintiffs. The original plaintiffs filed the suit in O.S.No.170/2004 on the file of the District Munsif cum Judicial Magistrate, Tiruvotriyur, for declaration and permanent injunction. It is the case of the plaintiffs that the suit property in S.No.1088/2A1 in T.S.No.11, to an extent of 0.45.5 hectares and S.No.1088/2A3 in T.S.No.10 to an extent of 0.15.5 originally belong to the first plaintiff. Patta, chitta and adangal stand in the name of the plaintiff. Subsequently, the suit schedule property has been settled in favour of the second plaintiff through a settlement deed dated 30.12.2003. Since then, the plaintiffs were in peaceful possession and enjoyment of the suit schedule property by putting up a superstructure and also a compound wall. While so, a notice dated 21.05.2004 came to be issued by the defendant stating that they would demolish the compound wall on the northern side as it stands in the property of the defendant. A reply has been given by the plaintiffs on 31.05.2004. In the said reply, it has been stated that while the Madhavaram Municipality made an attempt to demolish the compound wall, a suit has been filed in O.S.No.14 of 2004 and an interim order has also been obtained. Hence, it is the case of the plaintiff before the trial Court that the notice dated 21.05.2004 is vindictive, capricious and arbitrary.

2.2. The case of the defendants before the trial Court is that the Government has allotted 28.68 acres of land in S.Nos.1086-20, 1087-2 and 1088/1-6 to an extent of 20 acres, 2 acres and 6.68 acres respectively, which has been taken possession by the 1st defendant on 05.08.1967 and there is no sub division. It is their case that in the said land, the plaintiffs are attempting to construct a compound wall, which has been objected and a case has also been registered in Crime No.58 of 2004. Thereafter the plaintiffs agreed to stop the construction in the said portion. It is their further case that the plaintiffs have nothing to do with the said portion of the land and they have encroached the said portion by constructing a compound wall, which is illegal and permission has not been obtained from the Municipality for constructing the said compound wall. O.S.No.14 of 2004 is still pending. Though the plaintiffs have stated that for S.No.1088/2A3 measuring 0.15.5 Acres, there is a settlement deed in favour of the 2nd plaintiff, no such settlement deed has been produced and hence, the possession of the disputed area in the said land is illegal and the plaintiffs have to be evicted from the encroached portion.

3. During the course of trial, the trial Court framed the following issues :

(1) Whether the plaintiffs are entitled for the relief of declaration ?

(2) Whether the plaintiffs are entitled for the relief of permanent injunction ?

4. Before the trial Court, the first plaintiff examined himself as PW1 and marked Exs.A1 to A8. The defendant examined himself as DW1 and marked Exs.B1 to B3.

5. The Trial Court, on consideration of the pleadings and on appreciation of oral and documentary evidence, found that the plaintiffs are not entitled to get any relief and dismissed the Suit, vide judgment and decree dated 11.10.2007. The plaintiffs, aggrieved by the dismissal of the Suit, filed A.S.No.21 of 2007 on the file of the IV Additional District Court, Tiruvallur, at Ponneri.

6. The Lower Appellate Court, on going through the grounds of appeal, formulated the following points for determinati