IMPORTANT POINT
Registered mortgage deeds are superior to unregistered documents in establishing property possession, and revenue records serve as strong evidence of ownership.

JUDGMENT :

S. SOUNTHAR, J.

Prayer: Second Appeal filed under Section 100 of Civil Procedure Code against the judgment and decree made in A.S. No. 47 of 2005, dated 24.10.2005, on the file of the Subordinate Court, Tuticorin, reversing the judgment and decree made in O.S. No. 139 of 2001, dated 03.01.2003, on the file of the District Munsif Court, Srivaikundam.

1. This Second Appeal is directed against the judgment and decree made in A.S. No. 47 of 2005, dated 24.10.2005, on the file of the Subordinate Court, Tuticorin, reversing the judgment and decree made in O.S. No. 139 of 2001, dated 03.01.2003, on the file of the District Munsif Court, Srivaikundam.

2. The unsuccessful defendants in a suit for bare injunction filed by the respondents, are the appellants. The trial Court dismissed the suit filed by the respondents and the First Appellate Court reversed the findings of the trial Court and decreed the suit. Aggrieved by the same, the defendants are before this Court.

3. According to the respondents/Plaintiffs, the suit property are agricultural lands belonging to the first plaintiff and he mortgaged the suit property in favour of one Manickam @ Irulappa Thevar, husband of the first defendant and father of the second defendant, on 26.10.1980 and received the mortgage debt of Rs. 11,000/-. As per the terms of the Mortgage Deed, the first Plaintiff was liable to pay interest at the rate of 12% per year. It was also claimed by the plaintiffs that the mortgage was redeemed in the year 1987 itself by paying the entire mortgage debt. However, the title documents of the plaintiffs were not returned by the said Irulappa Thevar on the ground that those documents were misplaced. After some time, the said Irulappa Thevar died and hence the plaintiffs could not get the Mortgage Discharge document from him. Recently there was a misunderstanding between the plaintiffs and defendants and therefore, the defendants attempted to interfere with the peaceful possession of the plaintiffs and the same necessitated filing of the suit for bare injunction.

4. The first defendant filed a Written Statement and the same was adopted by the second defendant. In the written statement, the defendants denied the averments in the plaint as if the suit poroperty mortgage was redeemed even during the lifetime of Irulappa Thevar. It was claimed by the defendants that on the date of Mortgage itself, the plaintiffs executed an Yathathsu in favour of Irulappa Thevar and as per the terms of the same, the Irulappa Thevar had been enjoying the property in lieu of interest. After his death, the defendants had been in possession and enjoyment. It was also pleaded by the defendants that on 25.06.1982, there was a sale agreement between plaintiffs and Irulappa Thevar whereunder the plaintiffs have ageed to sell the suit property to Irulappa Thevar for a sale consideration of Rs.24,255/- The plaintiffs received a sum of Rs.8,755/- under the agreement apart from the earlier mortgage debt of Rs.11,000/- There was only a sum of Rs.4,500/- remained to be paid by the defendants to the Plaintiffs. On these pleadings, the defendants prayed for the dismissal of the suit.

5. Before the trial Court, the first plaintiff was examined as PW-1 and the mortgage deed executed by the first plaintiff in favour of Irulappa Thevar was marked as Ex.A1. On behalf of the defendants, the first defendant was examined as DW-1. Yet another witness was examined as DW-2. On behalf of the defendants, Yathasthu, dated 26.10.1980 executed by Plaintiffs in favour of Irulappa Thevar was marked as Ex.B1.The sale agreement between the plaintiffs and Irulappa Thevar was marked as Ex.B2.

6. The trial Court, on appreciation of oral and documentary evidence available on record, came to the conclusion that the plaintiffs failed to prove their possession over the suit property by producing any revenue documents and hence, dismissed the suit for bare injunction. Aggrieved by the same, the respondents/plaintiffs preferred a