JUDGMENT :

Prayer: Second Appeal filed under Section 100 of the Civil Procedure Code, to set aside the judgment and decree dated 07.08.2019 made in A.S.No.67 of 2015 on the file of the Sub Judge, Palani (Kodaikanal Camp) confirming the judgment and decree dated 27.07.2015 made in O.S.No.180 of 2011 on the file of the District Munsif cum Judicial Magistrate Court, Kodaikanal and allow this Second Appeal.

The Second Appeal is filed to set aside the judgment and decree dated 07.08.2019 made in A.S.No.67 of 2015 on the file of the learned Sub Judge, Palani (Kodaikanal Camp) confirming the judgment and decree dated 27.07.2015 made in O.S.No.180 of 2011 on the file of the learned District Munsif cum Judicial Magistrate, Kodaikanal.

2. The first plaintiff is the appellant in the above Second Appeal. It is the case of the plaintiffs that the suit schedule property is a Government poromboke land and that they were in occupation of the suit schedule property for more than 30 years. They had constructed houses in the suit schedule property and had obtained electricity connection for the houses. They had sought for a patta in the year 1989 and their request was rejected since the District Collector sent an order dated 19.08.1989 stating that patta cannot be granted in the hill station. While so, the defendants/respondents were attempting to disturb their peaceful possession. They are influential persons and hence, the plaintiffs had filed a suit for bare injunction. The suit schedule property consisted of four items. The first item pertained to the first plaintiff. Likewise, items 2 to 4 pertained to the plaintiffs 2 to 4.

3. The defendants/respondents filed a written statement denying the averments in the plaint. They submitted that the property belonged to them absolutely and it was not a Government poromboke land. The defendants further claimed that they had obtained patta for the suit property from the Kodaikanal Municipality and they are in possession of the property since 1995. Having stated thus, the defendants/respondents also admitted that the plaintiffs are in occupation of the suit schedule property and prayed for declaration of title and recovery of possession as a counter claim from the appellant and three others.

4. Before the Trial Court, the plaintiffs examined P.W.1, the first plaintiff and marked exhibits A1 to A22. The defendants/respondents examined the first defendant as D.W.1 and marked exhibits B1 to B14. The Trial Court framed the following issues:

(i) Whether the suit property is a Government poromboke land as claimed by the plaintiffs or a patta land as claimed by the defendants?

(ii) Whether the plaintiffs had built a house and residing in the suit schedule property for more than 30 years?

(iii) Whether the plaintiffs are entitled to relief of permanent injunction?

(iv) Whether the defendants are entitled to the counter claim of declaration and recovery of possession made by them?

(v) Whether the plaintiffs are entitled to any other relief?

5. The Trial Court found that the defendants had established that they had obtained patta in their names based on the documents filed by them and held that the suit schedule property was a patta land. The Trial Court further held that there is no material to show that the plaintiffs were in possession of the suit property for more than 30 years. The Trial Court also held therefore that the plaintiffs were not entitled to relief of permanent injunction. As regards issue Nos.(iv) and (v), the Trial Court found that the defendants were entitled to the relief of declaration of title based on Ex.B1 and Ex.B3 sale deeds, Ex.B4 and Ex.B5 patta, Ex.B6 Chitta and Ex.B7 Adangal. The Trial Court further granted the decree of declaration and for recovery of possession based on the counter claim only for the first defendant and rejected the claim so far as the second defendant is concerned. The Appellate Court confirmed the findings of the Trial Court.

6. This Court had admitted the Second App