JUDGMENT :

(Prayer: Second Appeal filed under Section 100 of the Civil Procedure Code against the judgment and decree dated 31.01.2012 in A.S.No.7 of 2011 passed by the learned Subordinate Judge, Poonamallee, confirming the judgment and decree dated 29.09.2010 in O.S.No.616 of 2004 passed by the learned Additional District Munsif, Poonamallee.)

1. The first defendant in the suit is before this Court in this Second Appeal. The plaintiff is the first respondent herein and the second defendant is the second respondent herein.

2. This Second Appeal has been filed challenging the judgment and decree dated 31.01.2012 in A.S.No.7 of 2011 on the file of the Subordinate Court, Poonamallee, confirming the judgment and decree dated 29.09.2010 in O.S.No.616 of 2004 on the file of the Additional District Munsif Court, Poonamallee.

3. For the sake of convenience, the parties will be referred to as per their ranking before the Trial Court.

The brief facts, which gave rise to this Second Appeal, are as follows:

4. According to the plaintiff, he is the owner of the property measuring an extent of 7,200 sq.ft in the Survey Nos.370/7A, 370/7B & 370/5 in Nerkundram Village covered under patta no.111. The plaintiff had purchased the property from one M.R.Kadambadi, represented by his power agent V.Gnanaraj through a sale deed dated 07.06.1984. After his purchase, he had obtained patta and he was in actual possession and enjoyment of the property. The plaintiff had sold an extent of 4,800 sq.ft., out of the total extent of 7,200 sq.ft. to one T.T.Balagangatharan, through a registered sale deed dated 23.01.1998 and retained the balance extent of 2400 sq.ft. for his own purpose. In the suit, the property purchased by the plaintiff from the said Kadambadi through sale deed dated 07.06.1984 is described as 'A' schedule, a portion of the property sold by the plaintiff to one Balagangatharan is described as 'B' schedule and the remaining lands retained by the plaintiff for his own use are described as 'C' schedule.

5. According to the plaintiff, even though the parent deed consisted of Survey Nos.370/7A, 370/7B and 370/5, which have been subsequently subdivided as Survey Nos.370/8, 370/9 and 370/10, the remaining land in occupation of the plaintiff is situated in Survey No.370/10, measuring 2,400 sq.ft. and is mentioned as 'C' schedule.

6. While so, during the months of November and December 2000, when the plaintiff was absent, as he had gone to his native place in Kerala, the first defendant unlawfully trespassed into the lands and put up construction. Immediately, in January 2001, the plaintiff had requested the first defendant to deliver the vacant possession that was trespassed by him. But, since the first defendant claimed that he was the owner, the plaintiff caused a legal notice on 02.01.2001. The first defendant, on receiving the notice, issued an evasive reply on 05.01.2001. While so, the second defendant herself trespassed into another portion of property in 'C' schedule and had put up construction. The plaintiff requested the second defendant to deliver the vacant possession and the same was evaded by her. The defendants are strangers and they have no manner of right in 'C' schedule property. As such, the plaintiff has come up with the suit for declaration and after removing the superstructure, for delivery of possession.

7. The first defendant resisted the suit by filing a written statement denying the fact that the plaintiff had purchased the property in Survey No.370/10. According to this defendant, the lands in Survey No.370/7 in Nerkundram Village were owned by one Kadambadi Naickar. He had personally executed a sale deed dated 22.10.1984 in his favour conveying an extent of 2400 sq.ft. and also the first defendant is in possession of the property. After the purchase, the defendant has constructed a building and is residing in the property. The building had been assessed to the property tax and he has been paying the tax, electricity charges and h