The rightful possession grants the plaintiff a standing to seek an injunction against interference, emphasizing that the burden of proof lies on the defendant to establish claims of forgery or misrepresentation.

JUDGMENT :

M. JOTHIRAMAN, J.

The instant second appeal has been filed at the instance of the plaintiff. The respondent herein is the defendant before the trial Court.

2. For the sake of convenience, the parties will be referred to according to their litigative status before the trial Court.

The brief facts which give raise to the instant second appeal are as follows:

3. The plaintiff filed the suit for permanent injunction restraining the defendant and his men, servants and agents from interfering with the possession and enjoyment of the property. It is stated that the property originally belongs to the Government and the plaintiff's forefathers occupied the land and constructed the house and they were in possession and enjoyment of the property. Originally the plaintiff's grandmother Maruthayeeammal was in possession and enjoyment of the property and the said Maruthayeeammal died 29 years back and after the death of the Maruthayeeammal, the plaintiff's father succeeded and was in possession and enjoyment of the property and now the plaintiff is in possession and enjoyment of the property. For their enjoyment, Tahsildar, Rasipuram had issued patta vide patta No.226 in S.No.22/2 and the door number of the house is 5/45 and 5/46. The Government has built up “Thoguppu veedu” and the plaintiff is also paying house tax. The plaintiff found that in the patta issued on 24.01.1990, some mistake has been crept in and the plaintiff had made an application before the Tahsildar for making necessary corrections in the patta and fresh patta was issued on 09.09.2002. The defendant without having any right over the suit property, before two months the defendant wanted pathway in the land. The plaintiff refused to give any pathway and thereby the defendant outraged the plaintiff with the help of goondas and made an attempts to put a pathway over the land. Hence, the suit.

4. It is the case of the defendant that on 21.04.1990, the plaintiff was issued with patta and again made an application to Tahsildar to correct the patta and fresh patta was also issued on 09.09.2002 is not correct. The patta issued during the year 1990, it is mentioned on the southern side of S.No.22/2 as 10 meters and the same was corrected as 18 meters and the plaintiff himself committed forgery in correcting the patta. On the eastern side of the plaintiff property there is a pathway and the plaintiff by committing forgery of patta, he wanted to annex the pathway to say that the pathway is not in existence. The plaintiff has filed the suit on the basis of forged patta and the plaintiff is not entitled for any reliefs.

5. Based on the pleadings, the trial Court framed the following issues :-

“(i)Whether the plaintiff is entitled to permanent injunction to restrain the defendant their men servants and agents from interfering with the possession of the property?

(ii)Whether there is a pathway in survey number 22/2 and the defendant is having right over the pathway?

(iii)To what relief if any, the plaintiff is entitled to?”

6. Before the trial Court, on the side of the plaintiff, the plaintiff himself examined as PW1 and one Ramasamy was examined as PW2 and Ex.A1 to A5 were marked. On the side of the defendant, the defendant herself examined as DW1 and no documents marked. Ex.C1 - Advocate Commissioner report and Ex.C2 - Advocate Commissioner plan were marked as Court documents.

7. Upon hearing either side and considering the materials available on record, the trial Court held that the plaintiff is in possession and enjoyment of the suit property, on the basis of Ex.A1 to Ex.A5 and through the oral evidence of PW1 and PW2, the plaintiff has proved his case and entitled to the