The burden of proof under Section 101 of the Evidence Act and the reliance on the Advocate Commissioner's Report to establish ownership were central legal points established in the judgment.

JUDGMENT

(Prayer: Second Appeal filed under Section 100 C.P.C., against the judgment and decree dated 24.01.2023 made in A.S.No.64 of 2019 on the file of Principal Sub Judge, Vellore, Vellore District, confirming the judgment and decree dated 25.02.2019 made in O.S.No.378 of 2010 on the file of Additional District Munsif, Vellore.)

1. Defendant, who suffered a decree of permanent injunction, the same having been confirmed by the Appellate Court, has preferred the present Second Appeal.

2. The case of the plaintiff is as under:-

(i) The suit property belongs to the plaintiff having been purchased by him from one S.V.P.Periyannan and six others, by virtue of sale deed dated 29.1.1997. After purchase of the same,the plaintiff had put up a shed with tin sheet roof and has been using the same as a godown for storing materials in connection with his business. The plaintiff has been in continuous, open and uninterrupted peaceful possession over the suit property from the date of purchase. On the southern side of the suit property, the plaintiff has got his house in which he has been residing with his family. On the norther side, the plaintiff has got another property. On the southern side of the suit property, there is a 10 feet height compound wall which was put up by his predecessor in title and the same has been shown as "EF" in the rough plan annexed with the plaint. The plaintiff has been granted Patta in respect of the suit property

(ii) The defendant, a neighbour of the plaintiff having his house on the southern side, by laying a false claim over a portion of the suit property, on 10.10.2010 made an attempt to demolish a portion of the compound wall on the eastern side. The defendant had already encroached a portion to a length of about 5 feet.

(iii) Despite the attempts of the plaintiff to prevent him, the defendant has been wielding threat to encroach the suit property belonging to the plaintiff and hence, the suit.

3. Denying all the plaint allegations in general, the defendant has filed the written statement contending as under:-

i) The defendant owns his property on the southern side of the plaintiff''s property. The defendant had perfected his title by adverse possession also. It is only the plaintiff, who had been in actual encroachment of the defendant''s property and the same has been found out by the revenue officials while measuring the same and when it has been questioned by the defendant, the plaintiff filed the vexatious suit and thereby, the plaintiff is not entitled to get any relief.

ii) If at all any remedy is required, the plaintiff had to file a suit for declaration of his title over the suit property and the present suit filed for permanent injunction in simplicitor is not maintainable.

iii) The suit is bad for non-joinder of necessary parties as the plaintiff has not impleaded his adjacent neighbours and in all, the suit is liable to be dismissed.

4. On the above pleadings, the Trial Court framed the following issues:-

i) Whether the suit without prayer for declaration of title is maintainable?

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

iii) Whether the plaintiff is entitled for decree of permanent injunction?

iv) To what other relief?

5. Before the Trial Court, the plaintiff had examined himself as PW1 and another witness as PW2 and marked two documents viz., Certified copy of the sale deed dated 29.1.1997 and Patta as Exs.A1 and A2. On the side of the defendant, the defendant examined himself as DW1 and examined two more witnesses as DW2 and DW3 and marked five documents as Exs.B1 to B5. The Advocate Commissioner was examined as CW1 while his Report and plan were marked as Exs.C1 and C2.

6. On examination of the oral and documentary evidence, the Trial Court had decreed the suit filed by the plaintiff granting permanent