Long-standing possession supported by revenue records can establish entitlement to property, negating the need for a formal declaration of title.

JUDGMENT :

R. SAKTHIVEL, J.

Prayer: Second Appeal filed under Section 100 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 praying to set aside the Judgment and Decree dated April 15, 2019 passed in A.S. No. 49 of 2018 on the file of the Court of Subordinate Judge, Chidambaram reversing the Judgment and Decree dated July 17, 2018 passed in O.S. No. 113 of 2007 on the file of the Court of District cum Judicial Magistrate, Kattumannarkoil, and restore the Judgment and Decree of the Trial Court by allowing the Second Appeal.

1. This Second Appeal is directed against the Judgment and Decree dated April 15, 2019 passed in A.S. No. 49 of 2018 by the ‘Subordinate Court, Chidambaram’ [henceforth ‘First Appellate Court’ for the sake of brevity], wherein and whereby the Judgment and Decree dated July 17, 2018 passed in O.S. No. 113 of 2007 by the ‘District Munsif cum Judicial Magistrate Court, Kattumannarkoil’ [henceforth ‘Trial Court’ for the sake of brevity] was reversed.

2. For the sake of convenience, hereinafter, the parties will be referred to as per their array in the Original Suit.

PLAINTIFFS’ CASE

3. The first plaintiff is the son of one Michael. Plaintiff Nos. 2 to 4 are said Michael’s pre-deceased son - Dawood’s legal heirs: second plaintiff is his widow and Plaintiff Nos. 2 to 4 are his sons. Plaintiff Nos. 5 and 6 are the daughters of said Michael. Michael’s another son - Samuvel passed away unmarried long ago. Michael’s daughter - Elizebath also passed away.

3.1. Suit Property is an extent of 0.15.00 Hectares [37 Cents approximately] within specific four boundaries situate in Resurvey No. 12/6A of Aranthangi Village. It is a Natham land. About fifty years before the date of plaint, first plaintiff’s father - Michael occupied the Suit Property and spent a lot to convert it into a fit place for residential purposes. Since then, he has been in continuous possession and enjoyment of the Suit Property by constructing two thatched house and one shed therein. He was living there till his demise in the year 2000. Based on his long and continuous possession, Government issued Patta in his name. After his demise, the plaintiffs being his legal heirs, have been in possession and enjoyment of the Suit Property.

3.2. The specific case of the plaintiffs is that the entire extent of 0.15.00 Hectares in R.S. No. 12/6A belongs to the plaintiffs and they have been in continuous possession and enjoyment of the Suit Property. On the southern side of the Suit Property, first defendant’s property is situated. The first defendant’s sister’s husband is the second defendant. The defendants demanded to sell the eastern portion of the Suit Property so as to enable them to access the first defendant’s property from the Road. But the plaintiffs denied to sell any portion of the Suit Property. Due to the plaintiffs’ refusal, the defendants developed enmity with the plaintiffs and attempted to trespass into the Suit Property. Hence, the Suit for permanent injunction restraining them from interfering with the plaintiffs’ peaceful possession and enjoyment of the Suit Property.

DEFENDANTS’ CASE

4. The first defendant filed written statement and the same was adopted by the second defendant. The sum and substance of the written statement is that the plaintiffs are entitled to only the northern 25 Cents out of total 2 Acre 60 Cents in R.S. No. 12/6, where the plaintiffs are residing. Earlier, on June 14, 1950, Anthonysamy, the elder brother of the first defendant’s father, purchased an extent of 2 Acre 35 Cents out of the total 2 Acre 60 Cents in S. No. 12/6 from one Sambasiva Naidu. After the demise of Anthonysamy, his brothers - Arockiasamy and Michael partitioned the said 2 Acre 35 Cents, whereby Arockiasamy was allotted an extent of 1 Acres 57 Cents and Michael was allotted 78 Cents and they were cultivating their respective lands. The first defendant is the son of aforesaid Arockiasamy. Two Cents in the said 2 Acre 35 Cents was allotted for pathway. Thus, the first defendant