IMPORTANT POINT
A plaintiff must provide clear and specific evidence of property ownership, including boundaries, to succeed in a claim for declaration and injunction.

JUDGMENT :

P.VADAMALAI, J.

PRAYER :-This Second Appeal is filed under Section 100 of the Civil Procedure Code, against the judgment and decree dated 15.02.2016 passed in A.S.No.17 of 2015 on the file of the Sub Court, Kovilpatti, confirming the judgment and decree dated 13.02.2015 passed in O.S.No.131 of 2012 on the file of the District Munsif Court, Kovilpatti.

This Second Appeal is preferred against the judgment and decree dated 15.02.2016 passed in A.S.No.17/2015 on the file of the Sub Court, Kovilpatti, confirming the judgment and decree dated 13.02.2015 passed in O.S.No.131 of 2012 on the file of the District Munsif Court, Kovilpatti.

2. The appellants are the defendants and the respondent is the plaintiff in O.S.No.131 of 2012 on the file of the District Munsif Court, Kovilpatti. The respondent/plaintiff filed the suit for declaration that the plaintiff is the absolute owner of the suit property and consequent permanent injunction against the defendants.

3. For the sake of convenience, the parties are referred as plaintiff and defendants as arrayed in O.S.No.131 of 2012 on the file of the District Munsif Court, Kovilpatti.

4. Case of the plaintiff:

The property in a larger extent of 1.52 acres in S.No.177/5 of Manthithoppu village originally belonged to one Ponnammal. Patta No.394 was issued in her name even in 1960. Prior to that, the old adangal number is 750 for the said property. Out of 1.52 acres, the western 51 cents was sold to one Ayyamperumal by the said Ponnammal along with her son Ramasamy Nadar through sale deed No.1310/1971 dated 15.07.1971. Thereafter, the said Ponnammal and her sons entered into oral partition in respect of 1.01 acres. Her son Kasi Nadar sold centre 51 cents out of 1.52 acres to one Seenivasa nadar. The remaining eastern 50 cents was purchased by one Sankarappa Naicker from the legal heirs of Ponnammal. Patta No.895 stood in the name of Ayyamperumal till his life time. Thereafter, patta No.895 was changed in the name of Seenivasa Nadar. The legal heirs of Ayyamperumal and Seenivasa Nadar jointly sold 1.02 acres to one Thirupati under registered Sale Deed No.926/2008, dated 04.02.2008. The survey number was sub divided and patta granted in S.No.177/5A to Thirupathi and the patta granted in S.No.177/5B to Sankarappa Naicker. Thiruppathi sold 1.02 acres to the plaintiff by virtue of registered Sale Deed No.7133/2009 dated 26.08.2009 and patta No.2377 was issued to him. From the date of purchase, the plaintiff has been in possession and enjoyment of the said property, which is described as suit property. The defendants colluded with revenue officials and obtained the same patta No.2377 without any notice to the plaintiff. The plaintiff filed an appeal before the Revenue Divisional Officer, who passed the order dated 15.03.2012 in Na.Ka.No.B6/9329/2010 restored the mutation registry in the name of plaintiff. But the defendants continuously tried to disturb the enjoyment of the plaintiff over the suit property. The plaintiff is temporarily residing in Singapore, so the plaintiff filed suit through power of attorney seeking for declaration and injunction.

5. Case of the Defendants:

The averments that the suit property with a larger extent originally belonged to Ponnammal and she along with her sons sold western 51 cents to Ayyamperumal and middle 51 cents to Seenivasa Nadar, and that Thirupathi purchased the above 1.02 acres from legal heirs of Ayyamperumal and Seenivasa Nadar and that the eastern 50 cents sold to Sankarappan Naicker are totally false. The alleged patta stood in the name of the plaintiff and his predecessor in title are also false. In fact, 1 acre 52 cents in S.No.177/5 of Manthithoppu was purchased by Rajasekaran, who is the husband of 1st defendant and father of defendants 2 to 4, from Seenivasa Naicker and his legal heirs by virtue of sale deed dated 22.05.1978. The said 1.52 acres originally belonged to Seeinvasa Naicker’s predecessor in title one Venkata Subba Naicker through sale de