In property disputes, the Plaintiff must prove title and possession with clear evidence, particularly regarding boundaries, which takes precedence over extent claims.

JUDGMENT :

(SATHI KUMAR SUKUMARA KURUP, J.)

The deceased Gnanasekar, Son of Sangappa Chetty has filed the suit in O.S. No. 163 of 2001 before the learned District Munsif, Hosur against the Respondents/Defendants herein for the relief of declaration to declare his right, title and interest in the suit schedule property and for a consequential injunction restraining the Defendants from interfering with his possession over the said property. By Judgment dated 22.10.2010, the suit was decreed against which an Appeal in A.S. No. 10 of 2011 was filed by the Respondents herein. The First Appellate Court, by the impugned judgment dated 31.07.2012 in A.S. No. 10 of 2011, reversed the judgment and decree passed by the trial Court. Aggrieved by the same, the present Second Appeal is filed.

2. It is seen from the records that after the first Appeal was allowed by the First Appellate Court on 31.07.2012, on 17.11.2012, the sole Plaintiff Gnanasekaran died. Therefore, his legal heirs have come up with the present Second Appeal.

3. For the sake of convenience, the parties shall be referred to as 'Plaintiff' and 'Defendants' as has been referred to in the suit.

4. The Plaintiff had filed the suit in O.S. No. 163 of 2001 by contending that he is the absolute owner of the property described in the suit. It is further stated that the first Defendant owns his house on the Western side of the suit property. It is also stated that the second Defendant is the wife of the first Defendant and the third Defendant is his son. The Plaint further proceeds to state that on 03.10.1929, the father of the Plaintiff, Sangappa Chetty purchased the suit property for a valuable sale consideration and from that date onwards he was in possession and enjoyment of the property. It is also stated that the suit property in Survey Numbers 1106/7 and 1106/8 in Hosur Village was allotted to his share in the year 1990, when a partition took place among the family members of the Plaintiff. According to the Plaintiff, he mutated the revenue records and obtained patta in his name. The Plaintiff also put up a compound wall on the Western side of his property 20 years back and was in peaceful possession and enjoyment of the property as an absolute owner. While so, during the third week of May 2001, the Defendants made a false propaganda in the Village that they have a right over the said property of the Plaintiff and even attempted to construct a building over the compound wall. It is also stated that the Defendants have also attempted to trespass into the property of the Plaintiff, but it was prevented by the Plaintiff. It is in those circumstances, the Plaintiff has instituted the suit.

5. On notice, the first Defendant filed a written statement contending inter alia that the Defendant does not know that the father of the Plaintiff has purchased the suit property and that a family partition took place in the family of the Plaintiff, whereby the suit property was allotted to the Plaintiff. It is further stated that the Plaintiff has to prove that there was a partition in his family during which the suit property was allotted to him. It is further stated that there is no compound wall at all on the Western side of the property. The Defendants have kept the Eastern side of their property vacant for ventilation and for carrying out repairs and white washing. The vacant land on the Eastern side of their property – Western side of the property of the Plaintiff, belongs to the Defendants and the Plaintiff cannot make any clai