Claimants must provide valid title documents and evidence of ownership in property disputes; reliance on non-title documents like patta is insufficient.

JUDGMENT :

K.GOVINDARAJAN THILAKAVADI, J.

The above second appeal arise out of the judgment and decree dated 13.12.2022 made in A.S.No.07/2015 on the file of Sub Court, Arni, Tiruvannamalai District, reversing the judgment and decree dated 10.03.2014 made in O.S.No.290 of 2007 on the file of the District Munsif Court, Arni.

2.The plaintiffs in the above suit are the appellants.

3.Facts of the case:

The plaintiffs as appellants filed the above suit for declaration of title in the 'B' schedule property and for permanent injunction restraining the defendants from interfering with the plaintiffs' peaceful possession and enjoyment in the 'B' schedule property and for mandatory injunction directing the 2^nd defendant to restore the pipeline in the 'B' schedule property.

4.The trial Court after framing necessary issues and considering the oral and documentary evidence of the parties and the arguments advanced by the respective counsel decreed the suit in favour of the plaintiffs. Aggrieved by this, the defendants preferred an appeal in A.S.No.7 of 2015 before the Sub Court at Arni, against the judgment and decree passed by the trial Court. The first appellate Court reversed the judgment passed by the trial Court and dismissed the suit filed by the plaintiffs. Hence, this second appeal is preferred.

5.According to the plaintiffs, the suit 'A' schedule property was originally ancestral property of one Chinnapaiya Pillai who had constructed a tiled house in the front side and a terraced building and a kitchen behind it before 30 years and was in peaceful possession and enjoyment of the same. The said Chinnapaiya pillai died 20 years back and after his demise the plaintiffs succeeded to his estate as his legal heirs and removed the tiled house and constructed a terraced house in the 'A' schedule property and are in peaceful possession and enjoyment of the same. The kitchen is in existence for more than 30 years, which is shown as 'B' schedule property in the plaint, which is a part of the 'A' schedule property and patta in respect of the suit property stands in the name of the 1^st plaintiff who is the eldest member of the family. According to the plaintiffs, there exist a ''Narasam'' on the eastern side of the 'B' schedule property and the same belong to the 1^st defendant. The 2^nd defendant after purchasing the property from the 1^st defendant on 02.08.2007 with incorrect measurement and excavated a mud portion on 02.09.2007 in the ''AB'' line as shown in the plaint plan due to which the wall of the plaintiffs' fell down. When the plaintiffs attempted to renovate the kitchen by removing the roof, the defendants objected the same and laid a false claim over the 'ABCD' portion as shown in the plaint plan. Hence, the plaintiffs were constrained to file the above suit.

6.The claim of the plaintiffs was resisted by the defendants stating that the 'A' schedule property originally belong to Chinnapaiya Pillai who along with his brothers namely Kista Pillai and Manicka Pillai divided their properties on 04.09.1986 under a registered partition deed. In the said partition deed the 'B' schedule property was allotted to Chinnapaiya pillai which is 45 feet east west and 29 feet North South totalling an extent of 1305 sq. ft., as vacant site. The tiled house is east west 16 feet and north south 10 feet totalling an extent of 160 sq. ft. It is submitted that it is incorrect to state that the kitchen is in existence for more than 30 years and the suit is filed without disclosing the actual extent of the 'A' schedule property. No such kitchen was mentioned in the partition deed which was executed between Chinnapaiya Pillai and his brothers in the