The appellate court must independently assess evidence and provide detailed reasoning in its decision, failing which the judgment is procedural error.

JUDGMENT :

G.ARUL MURUGAN, J.

1.The unsuccessful plaintiff is before this Court in Second Appeal. Pending appeal, sole appellant died and the appellants 2 to 5 have been substituted as legal heirs. The defendants in the suit are the respondents herein.

2. This Second Appeal has been filed as against the judgment and decree dated 15.06.2010 in A.S.No.38 of 2008 on the file the Additional Subordinate Court, Chengalpattu confirming the judgment and decree dated 18.12.2007 passed in O.S.No.294 of 1999 by District Munsif Court, Chengalpattu.

3. For the sake of convenience, the parties are referred to as per the ranking before the Trial Court.

The brief facts, as per the averments in the plaint, are as under:

4. According to the plaintiff, he is the absolute owner of the vacant land and building comprised in Old Survey No.93B/1B and New Survey No.178/2 to an extent of 1874 sq.ft situated at No.42/42A, Manimegalai Street, Guduvancherry, Kancheepuram District.

5. According to the plaintiff, the suit property originally belonged to plaintiff's brothers namely Gajendran and Mani respectively. His brother Gajendran sold the suit property in his favour by the registered sale deed dated 07.02.1972 bearing document No.376/72 in Ex.A.1. Further, his brother Mani also sold the suit property in his favour by the registered sale deed dated 13.12.1972 in Ex.A.2. From the date of purchase, the plaintiff is in peaceful possession and enjoyment of the suit property. All the revenue records like Chitta, Patta, Adangal and tax receipts are existing in the name of the plaintiff.

6. According to the plaintiff, the defendants are neighbours on the western side of the suit property. On 25.10.1999 the defendants tried to trespass into the suit property from the eastern side and the plaintiff thwarted the attempt by lodging a police complaint. Since the complaint was not entertained, the plaintiff has come up with the suit for bare injunction.

7. The defendants resisted the suit by filing written statement denying the fact that the suit property originally belonged to plaintiff's brothers Gajendran and Mani. The defendants along with the written statement has filed the geneology tree, which is also admitted in the suit.

8. According to the defendants, Kanniappan, the junior paternal grand father of the plaintiff was originally owning and possessing an extent of 12' X 45' feet in north-south in Gramanatham in S.No.93/B/1B bounded on the north by Nyniappa Naicker's backyard, on the west by Sundara Naicker (v) site, on the east by Rangasami Naicker's site, and on the south by Nyniappa Naicker's house.

9. According to the defendants, this site fell to the share of Kanniappan in the family arrangement among him and his brothers measuring an extent of 540 sq ft and he was in possession and enjoyment of the suit property. Further, by the registered sale deed dated 13.03.1914, the said Kanniappa Naicker sold the above-said 12' X 45 to Rangasami Naicker. The said Rangasami Naicker was in possession and enjoyment of the suit property till his demise in 1928. His widow Valliammal and Chinnammal widow of late Raju, eldest brother of Rangasami Naicker jointly executed a registered release deed dated 17.05.1929 in favour of the defendant's grand father Ponnusamy.

10. Thereafter, Ponnusamy Naicker became the owner of the said site measuring 12' X 45' by a registered deed dated 27.05.1929. Ponnusami Naicker gave Chinnammal a life time interest in the property, for which, she put up a residential house th