A declaration of property ownership requires establishing possession; without it, claims regarding related deeds are insufficient.

JUDGMENT :

P. DHANABAL, J.

1. This Second Appeal has been preferred by the second defendant, against the judgment and decree of dismissal passed by the Subordinate Court, Thiruvarur in A.S.No.20 of 2013, dated 09.01.2015, wherein the appellant and the second respondent herein have filed the said First Appeal (A.S.No.20 of 2013) as against the judgment and decree passed by the trial Court (District Munsif Court), Thiruvarur in O.S.No.27 of 2012, in partly decreeing the suit and the first appellate Court had dismissed the First Appeal (Appeal Suit No.20 of 2013) filed by the defendants, against which, the present Second Appeal has been preferred by the second defendant.

2. For the sake of convenience and brevity, the parties referred to in this appeal, will be referred as per their rank in the trial Court.

3. The appellant herein is the second defendant in the main suit in O.S.No.27 of 2012. The first respondent herein, being the plaintiff, had filed the said suit for declaration to declare that the sale deed, dated 28.03.2011 under Document No.1226 of 2011 as null and void and to injunct the defendants from interfering with the plaintiff's possession and enjoyment over the suit property.

4. The trial Court decreed the suit in respect of the relief of declaration and dismissed the suit for permanent injunction. As against the grant of declaration, the First Appeal has been preferred by the defendants and the same was dismissed, against which, the present Second Appeal has been filed by the second defendant.

5. The brief averments of the plaint filed by the plaintiff before the trial Court, are as follows:

Originally, the suit property belonged to one Chellammal and the plaintiff purchased the suit property through sale deed, dated 21.07.2011. The said Chellammal leased out the property to one Pappayyan, son of Chinnayyan. The first defendant is the adjacent land owner of the suit property. The first defendant illegally obtained Patta in his name in respect of the suit property. Based on the said Patta, he executed the sale deed, dated 28.03.2011 in favour of the second defendant and the second defendant who got the sale deed from the first defendant, had attempted to interfere with the peaceful possession of the suit property of the plaintiff and the first defendant has no right, title or interests over the suit property. However, he sold the property to the second defendant without any title, based on the above said sale deed, the second defendant was attempting to make interference over the suit property. Therefore, the suit is filed by the plaintiff for permanent injunction restraining the defendants from interfering with the peaceful possession and enjoyment over the suit property and to declare the sale deed, dated 28.03.2011 as null and void.

6. The brief averments of the written statement filed by the defendants are as follows:

The mother of the first defendant, i.e. Shenbagavalli purchased the property in the year 1979 in S.F.No.73/3, which is adjacent to the suit property. At that time, the said property was not sub-divided. From the date of purchase till the sale of the property to the second defendant, the first defendant was in possession and enjoyment of the suit property. From the year 1979, the property has been under the possession and enjoyment of the first defendant and the Patta was also transferred in the name of the first defendant and he has been paying the Kist to the property. In the year 1990, the first defendant obtained loan from the Bank and in the year 1975, Chellammal purchased the property from one Chellaiyan Velar. Even after purchase of th