The court clarified that reliance on an unchallenged Commissioner's report for title determination is improper without accurate property measurement, and limitation for recovery of possession involves statutory considerations.

JUDGMENT :

R.N. MANJULA, J.

1. The Second Appeal viz., S.A.No.293 of 2024 has been filed to set aside the judgment and decree dated 29.09.2010 passed in A.S.No.19 of 2008 on the file of the Sub Court, Ranipet, reversing the judgment and decree dated 17.12.2007 passed in O.S.No.87 of 2000 on the file of the District Munsif-cum-Judicial Magistrate Court No.I, Walajah.

2. The other Second Appeal viz., S.A.No.294 of 2024 has been filed to set aside the judgment and decree dated 29.09.2010 passed in A.S.No.44 of 2009 on the file of the Sub Court, Ranipet, confirming the judgment and decree dated 17.12.2007 passed in O.S.No.151 of 2000 on the file of the District Munsif-cum-Judicial Magistrate Court No.I, Walajah.

3. Heard both sides and perused the materials available on record.

4. Since the issue involved in both the second appeals are interconnected, these second appeals are decided by this common judgment.

5. For the sake of convenient discussion, the parties are referred as per their rank in the suits as plaintiffs and defendants.

S.A.No.293 of 2011

6. The defendants are the appellants. The plaintiffs have filed the suit against the defendants seeking the relief of declaration of his title in respect of the suit property which is shown as ABCD in the suit plan and consequential permanent injunction along with the relief of mandatory injunction to remove the superstructure constructed by the defendants in the suit property and hand over vacant possession. The trial Court had dismissed the suit and the first appeal filed by the plaintiffs has been allowed and the judgment and decree of the trial Court was set aside and the suit was decreed as prayed. Aggrieved over that, the defendants have preferred this second appeal.

7. The short facts pleaded by the plaintiffs in their plaint are as under :

7.1. The suit property is the ancestral property of the plaintiffs. The1^st plaintiff's father Narasimma Reddiar and his forefathers were in possession and enjoyment of the same for generations together. The four sons of Narasimma Reddiar viz., the Munusamy, Subramani, Rangasamy (1^st plaintiff) and Chinnasamy have divided the suit property through an oral partition several years ago.

7.2. The 1^st plaintiff purchased the share of Subramani from his widow Kannammal through a registered sale deed dated 17.02.1988. He also purchased the shares of other two brothers as per registered sale deeds dated 05.05.1972 and 16.03.1983. The 1^st plaintiff himself has got one share in the oral partition and along with the purchases he made from other sharers, he became entitled for whole of the suit property and he was in possession and enjoyment of the same as he is a lawful titleholder. Patta has been granted in favour of the 1^st plaintiff under Natham scheme as early as in the year 1992. The patta and the notice issued by the survey department under the Surveys and Boundaries Act were filed by the 1^st plaintiff.

7.3. The 1^st plaintiff has constructed a house in the suit property and living there along with his family members for the past several years. He has also paid kist and water tax to the panchayat in respect of the suit property.

7.4. The defendants are husband and wife. The 1^st defendant has his property on the eastern side of the suit property and the defendants claimed right over a portion, which is shown as ABCD in the suit property, which actually belongs to the 1^st plaintiff. On