Property disputes necessitate substantive evidence from both parties, and failure to present evidence may result in adverse inferences against the non-compliant party.

JUDGMENT :

(SATHI KUMAR SUKUMARA KURUP, J.)

This Second Appeal had been filed to set aside the decree and judgment dated 28.01.2013 passed in A.S. No. 3 of 2009 by the learned Principal Sub Judge, Pondicherry, confirming the decree and judgment dated 06.09.2006 passed in O.S. No. 770 of 2004, by the learned II Additional District Munsif, Pondicherry.

2. The Appellant in this Second Appeal is the Defendant before the learned II Additional District Munsif, Pondicherry in O.S. No. 770 of 2004. The Respondent/Plaintiff filed the said suit in O.S. No .770 of 2004 praying to grant the relief of declaration to declare that he is the owner of the 'C' Schedule mentioned property in the plaint and for a consequential permanent injunction in respect of the “C” schedule property restraining the Defendants, their men, servants, agents or anyone from in any manner interfering with the same.

3. The brief facts, which are necessary for the disposal of this Second Appeal, are as follows:

3.1. According to the Plaintiff, Plaint 'A' Schedule property belonged to his Grandfather Murugappa Gounder, who acquired the suit “A” Schedule Property through a registered Deed of Partition dated 27.08.1943. In the deed of partition dated 27.08.1943, the “A” Schedule Property is indicated as item No.13. From the said date, the Plaintiff's grandfather had been in possession and enjoyment of the said property by cultivating it. On the death of Murugappa Gounder, his son Chinnathambi Gounder inherited all the properties, including the plaint 'A' Schedule property. During his life time, Chinnathambi Gounder partitioned the properties along with his three sons namely (1) Chinna Durai @ Janarthanam (Plaintiff) (2) Rajamanickam and Paneerselvam which was registered on 12.11.1976 on the file of Sub-Registrar, Thirukkanur. The “A” Schedule property in the plaint was allotted to the Plaintiff in the partition deed dated 12.11.1976. After such partition, the Plaintiff has been in possession and enjoyment of the property as an absolute owner thereof by mutating the revenue records.

3.2. According to the Plaintiff, the Defendant through their Secretary purchased land measuring 87 Kuzhis, 13 Veesams in the “A” schedule property out of the total extent of 100 Kuzhis through a registered sale deed dated 18.11.2002. The land so purchased by the Defendant is shown as “B” schedule property in the plaint. The remaining properties, after sale to the Defendant remain with the Plaintiff viz., 12 Kuzhis 3 Veesams and it is mentioned as “C” Schedule of the Plaint.

3.3. While so, on 25.09.2004, the Defendant through the brother-in- law of their Secretary viz., Sugumaran made a rival claim over the suit “C” schedule mentioned property and attempted to interfere with the possession of the same by the Plaintiff but it was thwarted. Again on 27.09.2004, the Secretary of the Defendant sent his brother-in-law along with some rowdy elements who forcibly entered into the “C” schedule property under some fictitious sale deed. The Plaintiff therefore given a complaint to the Station House Officer, Thirukkanur. On an enquiry conducted by the Police Officials, the Defendants were warned not to interfere with the possession of the Plaintiff again. However, on 09.10.2004, once again, the Defendant through its Secretary, men and officers threatened the Plaintiff along with their henchmen to dispossess the Plaintiff. The Plaintiff therefore given a complaint on 09.10.2004 to the Station House Officer, who advised him to approach the Civil Court for appropriate relief. Accordingly, the Plaintiff had filed the suit.

3.4. On notice, the Defendant filed a written statement contending inter alia that it is true th