A party asserting exclusive title to a disputed boundary structure must substantiate their claim through clear documentary evidence demonstrating ownership within their title grant. Absent such proof, and in the presence of concurrent findings, an appellate court will not disturb lower court decisions absent demonstrable perversity.

JUDGMENT :

R.Poornima, J.

S.A.No.1679 of 2003 has been filed by Gopinath who is the plaintiff in O.S.No.22 of 1996 as against the judgment and decree, dated 24/10/2002 and made in A.S.No.52 of 2002 on the file of the Principal Subordinate Court, Tirunelveli, confirming the judgment and decree, dated 18/10/2001 and made in O.S.No.22 of 1996 on the file of the II Additional District Munsif, Tirunelveli. Whereas S.A.No.1127 of 2004 has been filed by Ponnammal who is the plaintiff in O.S.No.450 of 1995 as against the judgment and decree passed in A.S.No.43 of 2002, dated 24/10/2002 on the file of the Principal Subordinate Court, Tirunelveli, as confirmed in O.S.No.450 of 1995, dated 18/10/2001 on the file of the II Additional District Munsif, Tirunelveli. Similarly, S.A.No.1128 of 2004 has been filed by Ponnammal who is the plaintiff in O.S.No.450 of 1995 as against the judgment and decree passed in A.S.No.47 of 2002, dated 24/10/2002 on the file of the Principal Subordinate Court, Tirunelveli, as confirmed in O.S.No.22 of 1996 dated 18/10/2001 on the file of the II Additional District Munsif, Tirunelveli.

2.The suit in O.S.No.450 of 1995 was filed by one Ponnammal as plaintiff against Gopinath for a declaration and permanent injunction. According to the plaintiff, the suit property originally belonged to one Velayuthampillai. On 16/11/1911, the said Velayuthampillai gifted the first item of the suit scheduled property in favour of his wife Thayammal @ Avudaiyammal. The said Thayammal @ Avudaiyammal sold the property to one Sankaravadivammal, on 25/09/1913. After the death of Sankaravadivammal, the property devolved upon her son Subbaiyapillai. Thereafter, on 11/04/1945, he sold the property to the plaintiff's father Somasundaram Pillai. The said Somasundaram Pillai executed a registered Will on 07/10/1956. The said Will came into effect after the death of the Somasundaram Pillai, on 15/06/1973. As per the Will, the first scheduled suit property bequeathed to the plaintiff. After the death of her father, she has been in continuous possession and enjoyment of the property. In all the documents from the year 1911, the present Door No.17 showed as vacant land on the eastern boundary of her property. Only during the year 1913, constructions were made in the first scheduled property. The plaintiff's house bears Door No.20. The eastern side of the wall situated in her property belongs to the plaintiff and her ancestors.

3. The suit wall has been in possession and enjoyment by the plaintiff's family ever-since the date of the construction. It was not in the possession and enjoyment of the defendant. The house bearing Door No. 17 was situated on the eastern side of the plaintiff's house. There was a corridor available measuring 4 feet between Door No.17 and Door No.20. Recently the officials from the Survey Department came and measured the property mentioning the wall as a common wall which was wrong. The said wall exclusively belongs to the plaintiff. The plaintiff, therefore, prayed to declare that the wall as the absolute property of the plaintiff and to pray grant of injunction.

4.The defendant, who is the plaintiff in O.S.No.22 of 1996 filed written statement by contending that the wall which is the subject matter of the suit is the the western side wall of the defendant house bearing Door No.17. The suit property belongs to the plaintiff situated only on the western side of his property. A small corridor was situated on the eastern side of the the property. That was t