IMPORTANT POINT
The central legal point established in the judgment is the requirement for a plaintiff to prove exclusive possession in a property dispute, and the court's reliance on documentary evidence and admissions of possession in reaching its decision.

JUDGMENT :

(Prayer: Second Appeal is filed under Section 100 of C.P.C against the judgment and decree dated 17.03.2022 made in A.S.No.11 of 2019 on the file of the Subordinate Court, Harur confirming the judgement and decree dated 10.01.2019 made in O.S.No.99 of 2013 on the file of the District Munsif Court, Harur and allow this appeal consequently decree the suit.)

1. The defendant in a suit for bare injunction is the appellant before this Court. The facts are briefly set out herein below and the parties are referred to in the same ranking as before the trial Court.

2. It is the case of the plaintiff that the suit property and other properties had been purchased by his paternal grandmother, Fathima Beevi under a Sale deed dated 07.11.1939. The suit property has been described as follows in the plaint.

3. It is the contention of the plaintiff that after the death of Fathima Beevi, his father, Syed Masthan, who was the son of Fathima Beevi, had inherited her property and was in enjoyment of the same. He had got the patta in respect of the suit property mutated in his name on 20.03.1991. Barring the suit property, Syed Masthan had sold the other properties to third parties. Thereafter, a joint patta bearing No.531 in the name of the plaintiff's father and others came to be issued. Syed Masthan died on 21.08.2006, leaving behind the plaintiff, who inherited and was in enjoyment of the same. The defendant is a third party to the suit property. The defendant had purchased the properties near the suit property from the plaintiff's father. The plaintiff had made an application on 26.11.2012 to have the patta mutated in his name in respect of the suit property. The defendant wanted the plaintiff to sell the property for a low price to her which was refused by the plaintiff. Therefore, incensed by the response, the defendant on 27.04.2013, attempted to trespass into the suit properties and dump stones. However, the plaintiff had with the help of the neighbours prevented this attempt. Therefore, the plaintiff has come forward with the suit in question.

4. The defendant had filed a written statement denying the claim of the plaintiff. The defendant would submit that there is no property, as described in the suit schedule, existing on site. The defendant would submit that the plaintiff has given false boundaries for the property. This has been made to usurp the property of the defendant. The defendant would submit that Syed Masthan had sold the property to one Sendaraya Chetty, who in turn had sold the same to one Abdul Wahab. Abdul Wahab had sold the property to the defendant on 21.01.1982. Since the date of the sale in her favour, the defendant has been in possession and enjoyment of the property. The defendant would submit that the plaintiff has no right, title or interest to the suit property. He would submit that the plaintiff was harassing the purchasers from his father and attempting to grab the money from them. The defendant was using the suit property to draw water from the bore well to her house. It is her property that the plaintiff was attempting to grab. A similar suit had been filed by the defendant against one Raman, who had also taken out a similar defense that the suit property as shown in the suit was not there on site, and the suit was dismissed, upholding the claim of the defendant. Therefore, this appears to be a modus operandi of the plaintiff to grab the property. Therefore, the defendant sought to have the suit dismissed.

5. The trial Court had framed the following issues :

6. The plaintiff had examined himself as P.W1 and marked Exs.A1 to A6. He had also examined one Markoni as P.W2. The defendant had neither entered the box nor marked documentary evidence. The trial Court ultimately decreed the suit. Challenging the same, the defendant had filed A.S.No.11 of 2019 on the file of the Subordinate Court, Harur. The lower appellate Court had also confirmed the judgement and decree of the trial Court and dismissed the appeal.