Possession rights are protected under statutory inheritance laws, and the burden of proof lies with those asserting disputes over such rights.

JUDGMENT :

S. SRIMATHY, J.

1. The Second Appeal in S.A.(MD)No.16 of 2024 is filed against the Judgment and Decree, dated 18.03.2017 in A.S.No.18 of 2016 on the file of the 1^st Additional Sub Court, Nagercoil, reversing the Judgment and Decree, dated 30.03.2016 passed in O.S.No.319 of 2012 on the file of the District Munsif-cum-Judicial Magistrate Court, Boothapandy.

2. The plaintiff in the suit is the appellant herein, the 1^st defendant in the suit is the 1^st respondent herein and the defendants 2 to 4 in the suit is the respondents 2 to 4 herein. For the sake of convenience, the rank of the parties shall be referred as plaintiff and defendants as stated in suit.

3. The suit in O.S.No.319 of 2012 was filed for injunction against the 1^st defendant not to disturb the peaceful possession of the plaintiff and for mandatory injunction to defendants 2 to 4 to reissue patta which was cancelled by them. The brief facts are that the 1^st defendant is the mother of the plaintiff and the 1^st defendant have six daughters and one son being the plaintiff. The father of plaintiff died 10 years back. The plaintiff had married a lady belongs to another community, hence the 1^st defendant refused to take the plaintiff and his wife in their home. Bur due to the intervention of the elders and village people, the plaintiff was permitted to live in a thatched house in the corner of the vacant site of the plaint schedule property, which is an ancestral property. The 1^st defendant along with last daughter, who is sick, was residing in the concrete family house. The plaintiff is a coolie and has two children. The sisters of the plaintiff are married and are well settled. After the demise of the father, the mother and sisters of the plaintiff are trying to send the plaintiff out of the schedule property. On 02.10.2011 one of the sisters of plaintiff had damaged the belongings of the plaintiff and dismantled the thatched house and threatened the plaintiff to vacate the place immediately. The plaintiff's aunt, Annapooranam on hearing this has sold her half share over the schedule property in R.S.No.341/15A admeasuring 75.0297 square meter and R.S.No.341/7B admeasuring 75.04992 square meter in favour of the plaintiff through sale deed dated 28.10.2011 in Document No. 2120/2011. Based on the same revenue records were mutated in the name of the plaintiff. When the plaintiff went to the 2^nd defendant office to pay property tax, the 2^nd defendant replied that he could pay the tax only in the name of his grandfather and father. Further the patta in the name of plaintiff was cancelled by the 2^nd defendant at the instigation of 1^st defendant. And on 25.08.2012 the sisters of the plaintiff along with their husbands trespassed into the plaintiff house and tried to kill the plaintiff, his wife and children. The plaintiff rescued them and admitted to the hospital. Criminal complaint was registered in Crime No.53/2012 and the same is pending in the court. Hence this suit for injunction against the 1^st defendant not to disturb his peaceful possession and enjoyment over the suit property and also for mandatory injunction against 2 to 4 defendants to reissue the Patta which was cancelled by them.

4. The 1^st defendant had stated that the suit is not maintainable, there is no cause of action and the plaintiff has not approached the court with clean hands. The allegation in the plaint is the story invented by the plaintiff to create hardship to the 1^st defendant. The suit is bad for non-joinder of necess