The main legal point established in the judgment is the significance of the patta issued in favor of the plaintiff, which demonstrated his exclusive possession of the property and influenced the court's decision in favor of the plaintiff.

JUDGMENT

(Prayer: Second Appeal filed Under Section 100 of the Code of Civil Procedure against the Judgment and Decree of the Learned Additional District and Sessions Judge (Fast Track Court No.II), Tindivanam in A.S.No.64 of 2002 dated 14.02.2003 confirming the judgment and decree of the Learned District Munsif of Vanur in O.S.No.426 of 1995 dated 26.04.2000.)

1. This Second Appeal is preferred as against the Judgment and Decree of the learned Additional District and Sessions Judge (Fast Track Court No.II), Tindivanam in A.S.No.64 of 2002 dated 14.02.2003 confirming the judgment and decree of the Learned District Munsif of Vanur in O.S.No.426 of 1995 dated 26.04.2000.

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

3. The case of the plaintiff in brief is as follows:-

The suit is filed for declaration and permanent injunction. The plaintiff and 1st defendant are the brothers. The suit property is Gramanatham. The plaintiff took possession of the same 15 years ago and built up a thatched house and has been living peacefully and also paying taxes. Before possession, the suit property was a vacant site. Except the plaintiff, nobody else was in possession and enjoyment. The plaintiff and the 1st defendant are not in good terms. From 19.01.1995 onwards, the defendant is threatening the plaintiff that he would set fire to the hut, drive him away from there and will take possession forcefully. The plaintiff hails from a poor family. If he is driven out by the defendant, he along with his family members will be in streets without any shelter. The defendant is taking law in his own hands and he has support in the village and also had man power. Hence, the plaintiff filed the suit for declaration and permanent injunction.

4. The defendant, resisting the suit claim, filed a written statement, inter alia, stating that the suit is not proper and he denies that the suit property exclusively belongs to the plaintiff and that the plaintiff has not taken possession of the suit property 15 years ago and has not been in peaceful possession and enjoyment of the suit property. The suit property along with the thatched house does not belong to the plaintiff and it is not a Gramanatham land. On 29.03.1985, the suit property was settled in favour of Venkatakrishna Reddiyar by one Thirukkamu Reddiar by way of Registered Settlement Deed and handed over possession to him also. As such, the vacant site was in possession of Venkatakrishna Reddiar, who in turn, executed a Will in favour of one Sarojini Ammal and she has been in possession and enjoyment of the suit property. Several years before, in the said land, the defendant's father Velayutha Pandithar built a thatched house, with the permission of Venkatakrishna Reddiar. Therefore, the thatched house is built by Velayutha Pandithar and not by the plaintiff. On 20.06.1994, the said Sarojini Ammal entered into a sale agreement for Rs.13,000/- with one Rajeswari Ammal, who is none other than the defendant's wife. On the date of agreement itself, the suit property was given in possession to Rajeswari Ammal. Hence, Rajeswari Ammal is necessary party to this suit. The suit property is not in possession of the plaintiff. Hence, the defendant prayed that the suit is not maintainable and is liable to be dismissed with costs.

5. Based on the pleadings, the trial Court has framed the following issues:

i) Whether the plaintiff is entitled for declaration and permanent injunction?

ii) Whether the suit property is in possession of the plaintiff?

iii) Whether the agreement of sale dated 20.06.1994 of the suit property is valid?

iv) Whether the suit property is in possession of the defendant?

v) Whether the suit is bad for non-joinder of necessary parties?

vi) To what relief the plaintiff is entitled for?

6. On the side of the plaintiffs, P.W.1, P.W.2 and P.W.3 were examined and seven documents were marked as Ex.A.1 to Ex.A.7. On the side of the defendants, they examined DW.