JUDGMENT :

PRAYER: Second Appeal is filed under Section 100 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 praying to set aside the Judgment and Decree dated November 4, 2019 passed in A.S.No.26 of 2018 on the file of Additional Subordinate Court, Tiruppur, whereby the Judgment and Decree dated April 20, 2018 passed in O.S.No.326 of 2009 on the file of District Munsif Court, Tiruppur was confirmed.

This Second Appeal is directed by the unsuccessful plaintiffs. Challenge is to the Judgment and Decree dated November 4, 2019 passed in A.S.No.26 of 2018 on the file of ‘Additional Subordinate Court, Tiruppur’ ['First Appellate Court' for short], whereby the Judgment and Decree dated April 20, 2018 passed in O.S.No. 326 of 2009 on the file of ‘District Munsif Court, Tiruppur’ ['Trial Court' for short] was confirmed.

2. Hereinafter, for the sake of convenience, the parties will be denoted as per their array in the Original Suit.

Plaintiffs’ Case in Brief:

3. In the Plaint it is averred that the plaintiffs are the absolute owners of house properties bearing Door Nos. 405 and 406. The second plaintiff is the son of the first plaintiff’s brother. An open triangular space on the southern side of Door No. 405 serves as the plaintiffs’ front yard and pathway, and constitutes the Suit Property. The Suit Property is a Natham land bounded by the house of Palanisamy Mudaliar on the west, an East-West Street on the south, and the first plaintiff’s property on the north and the east. The plaintiffs have continuously and peacefully been in possession and enjoyment of the Suit Property for over 80 years without any interference.

3.1. The defendants, who are father and son, reside on the east side of the plaintiffs’ house properties and the Suit Property. They have no legal rights over the Suit Property. With intent to usurp the Suit Property, one Sivabagiam attempted to obtain a Patta in her favour on January 25, 2006. However, the first plaintiff prevented this attempt by submitting representations to the Tiruppur Tahsildar and the Village Administrative Officer of Veerapandi Village. Over the past two years, the defendants have similarly sought to obtain Patta for the Suit Property multiple times but the attempts were all thwarted by the plaintiffs. On September 25, 2009, the defendants trespassed into the Suit Property and attempted to remove trees planted by the plaintiffs. The plaintiffs resisted this trespass, and then the defendants lodged a complaint with the local police against the plaintiffs. Hence, the Suit for permanent injunction and costs.

Defendants’ Case in Brief:

4. The first defendant filed Written Statement and the same was adopted by second defendant. The defendants admit the relationship between the parties. They aver that the Suit Property does not belong to the plaintiffs. It was originally ancestral property of one Sivathal alias Sivabagiavathy. The second defendant purchased the Suit Property from the said Sivabagiavathy for consideration vide Sale Deed dated July 17, 2006. Since then the defendants have been in actual possession and enjoyment of the Suit Property by putting some wooden articles in the Suit Property.

4.1. It is further averred that the plaintiffs sought to purchase the Suit Property from the said Sivabagiavathy before the said Sale, and the same was unsuccessful. Thereafter, they sought to purchase from the defendants who also declined. Aggrieved plaintiffs set ablaze the wooden articles. Hence, the defendants filed a complaint at Police Station, where during investigation the plaintiffs agreed not to disturb the defendants any more. This Suit filed thereafter is a false, frivolous and a vexatious one.

Accordingly, they prayed that the Suit shall be dismissed.

Trial Court:

5. At Trial, on the side of the plaintiffs, the first plaintiff examined himself as P.W.1 and marked Ex-A.1 to Ex-A.6; J. Sundarapandiyan, Village Administrative Officer of Veerapandi Village was examined as P.W.2 and Ex-X.1 and Ex-X.2 were marked through hi