A second appeal under Section 100 CPC is restricted to substantial questions of law; the High Court cannot re-appreciate evidence or allow amendments that fundamentally alter the nature of a suit or permit additional evidence that fails to meet strict statutory criteria at the appellate stage.

JUDGMENT :

K. Murali Shankar, J.

The Second appeal is directed against the judgment and decree, dated 14.11.2022 in A.S.No.20 of 2019 on the file of the Sub Court, Sivagangai, confirming the judgment and decree, dated 10.01.2019 made in O.S.No.226 of 2016 on the file of the District Munsif Court, Sivagangai.

2. The appellants are the plaintiffs. They have filed a suit in O.S.No.226 of 2016, before the District Munsif Court, Sivagangai, seeking permanent injunction restraining the defendants and their men from in any manner interfering with the plaintiffs' peaceful possession and enjoyment of the suit property.

3. For the sake of convenience and brevity, the parties hereinafter referred as per ranking/status before the trial Court.

4.The case of the plaintiffs, in brief, is as follows:

a) The suit property was purchased by one Aru. Gana. Kannappa Chettiar, the father of plaintiffs 1 to 3, from Palaniyandi Servai and his brother Soman Servai, sons of Subbiah Servai, under a registered sale deed dated 29.09.1944. From the date of purchase, the said Kannappa Chettiar had been in possession and enjoyment of the suit property. He had been leasing out the property for putting up temporary shops during the Mariamman Temple festival and was collecting rents therefrom.

b) The said Kannappa Chettiar died intestate on 24.01.1986 and, after his demise, plaintiffs 1 to 3 became entitled to the suit property as his legal heirs and have continued to be in possession and enjoyment of the same. Since the suit property had been wrongly classified as “Sarkkar Manai”, the plaintiffs approached the Revenue Department seeking correction of the revenue records. Pursuant to the proceedings of the Headquarters Deputy Tahsildar, Kalaiyarkovil, patta for an extent of 0.05.0 hectares in Survey No.37/165 was granted in favour of the plaintiffs under Patta No.80.

c) Consequent to the grant of patta, the relevant revenue records, including Chitta and Adangal, were mutated in the names of the plaintiffs. Thereafter, the plaintiffs sold an extent of two cents out of the suit property to the fourth plaintiff under a registered sale deed dated 01.06.2009. The fourth plaintiff constructed a residential house therein and, after obtaining electricity and water service connections, has been residing there with his family.

d) The defendants, claiming certain alleged rights over the suit property, submitted a petition before the District Collector, Sivagangai, on 13.05.2014. However, after due enquiry, the said petition came to be dismissed. The defendants had also lodged a complaint alleging land grabbing and fabrication of documents, but the said complaint was also closed after enquiry.

e) The defendants, who have absolutely no manner of right, title or interest over the suit property, attempted to interfere with the plaintiffs’ peaceful possession and enjoyment of the same on 10.12.2016. The said attempt was resisted by the plaintiffs. Hence, the plaintiffs were constrained to file the above suit seeking the relief of permanent injunction.

5.The defence of the defendants, in brief, is as follows:

a) One Subbiah Servai had four sons, namely, (i) Vellaichamy Servai, (ii) Kamatchi Servai, (iii) Palaniyandi Servai and (iv) Soman Servai. The plaintiffs claim to have purchased the suit property only from Palaniyandi Servai and Soman Servai. Therefore, according to the defendants, the plaintiffs could have acquired title only to an undivided extent of 6 cents in the suit property. However, without notice to the defendants and by suppressing the true facts, the plaintiffs had fraudulently obtained transfer of patta in their names. Aggrieved by the same, the defendants preferred an appeal before the Revenue Divisional Officer, Sivagangai and, after enquiry, the patta was restored in the name of Subbiah Servai, as it originally stood.

b) Since the plaintiffs are entitled only to an undivided extent of 6 cents, they are not entitled to seek the relief of permanent injunction in respect of