JUDGMENT :

PRAYER: Second Appeal filed under Section 100 of the Code of Civil Procedure against the Judgement and Decree in A.S.No.15 of 2002, on the file of the Additional District Court Fast Track Court No.I, Chengalpattu and dated 30.03.2005 in confirming the judgement and decree in OS.No.642 of 1993, on the file of the District Munsif Court, Chengalpattu and dated 30.01.2002.

The defendant who has concurrently lost in both the Courts below is the appellant before this Court. The challenge is to the decree for injunction granted by the District Munsif, Chengalpattu in O.S.No.642 of 1993 which was confirmed by the Additional District Court Fast Track Court No.I, Chengalpattu in A.S.No.15 of 2002. The parties are referred to in the same ranking as before the Trial Court.

2. The plaintiff had filed the above suit for bare injunction restraining the defendant, his men, agents and servants from interfering with the plaintiff's peaceful possession and enjoyment of the suit property. The suit property has been described as follows:-

i) Property situate at Thiruporur Village, Thiruporur firks, Chengalpattu Taluk.

3. It is the case of the plaintiff that the suit property is a Grama Natham Poramboke which was in the occupation of one Veerabadra Mudaliar. After his death his son Murugesan Mudaliyar, was in possession and occupation of the same till the year 1972. Thereafter, Murugesan Mudaliyar shifted to Madras and the plaintiff was in permissive occupation of the suit property from Murugesan Mudaliyar. It is the further case of the plaintiff that on 19.03.1977, the said Murugesan agreed to sale the suit property to him. The plaint would further read that the property was being enjoyed by the plaintiff by stocking manure and tethering cattle. The sale consideration was a sum of Rs.1,000/- for which an advance of Rs.750/- was paid and the balance sale consideration of Rs.250/- was to be paid within a period of one year. On 15.03.1978, the balance sale consideration of Rs.250/- was also paid and an entry made in the reverse of the agreement. It was informed to the plaintiff that since the suit property was a Grama Natham Poramboke, the sale deed was not required to be executed and registered, therefore the sale deed had not been executed.

4. The case of the plaintiff is that the property was being used by him from the year 1972 for stocking manure, throwing rubbish and tethering his cattle. The plaintiff's wife Vijaya Ammal had purchased the property to the east of the suit property from one Pullikara Rao under a sale deed dated 27.08.1986. The suit property is used as an appurtenant land for the said property. It is also his case that the suit property has been fenced on all sides and there are some trees in the suit property which was being enjoyed by the plaintiff. While so, the defendant who had in no manner of a right, title or interest in the property and who was living in a different village gave out that he would trespass into the suit property. It is the further case of the plaintiff that the defendant has a powerful backing of his community people and therefore he should be restrained by means of a permanent injunction.

5. The defendant had filed a written statement inter alia denying the contentions contained in the plaint. He would state that the suit property belong to Pushpathammal, the wife of Veerabadra Mudaliar, whose power agent and daughter Deivanai Ammal had sold the suit property to the defendant under a registered sale deed dated 06