The cancellation of assignment pattas undermines the plaintiffs' right to maintain an injunction suit based on possession.

JUDGMENT

The plaintiffs are the appellant. They have filed a suit for bare injunction. The suit was decreed by the trial Court and the findings of the trial Court were reversed by the first appellate Court. Aggrieved by the same, the plaintiffs have come by way of this second appeal.

2.According to the plaintiffs, the suit property is a Village Natham site.

They have been in possession and enjoyment of the same from the time of their forefathers. It is the case of the plaintiffs that the suit property was enjoyed by their forefathers by worshipping Sri Sannasi Andavar. It was also claimed that the suit property has been in possession and enjoyment of more than 500 families worshipping Sri Sannasi Andavar. Recognizing the right of the plaintiffs, an assignment patta was issued in their names by the Tashildar. The defendants, who are northern neighbours of the suit property without having any manner of right, attempted to interfere with the possession of the plaintiffs. Hence, they were constrained to file a suit for bare injunction.

3.The defendants filed their written statement disputed the competency of the plaintiffs to sue in their individual names without filing a suit in representative capacity. The defendants specifically denied the possession and also the alleged right of worship. The defendants also claimed that they had been in possession and enjoyment of the suit property for more than 100 years through their ancestors. It was also claimed by the defendants that the suit property was in occupied natham and they had been enjoying the same along with their house on the northern side of the suit property.

4.Before the trial Court, on the side the plaintiffs, three witnesses were examined as P.W.1 to P.W.3 and 13 documents were marked as Ex.A1 to Ex.A13.

On behalf of the defendants, no documentary and oral evidences were let in. 5.The Trial Court based on the assignment patta produced by the plaintiffs, which were marked as Ex.A1, Ex.A4, Ex.A6, Ex.A8, Ex.A10 and Ex.A12 issued in the names of individual plaintiffs and the chitta dated 01.06.2008, came to the conclusion that the plaintiffs proved their possession over the suit property and granted the decree for permanent injunction. Aggrieved by the same, the defendants preferred an appeal in A.S.No.39 of 2011 on the file of the learned Subordinate Judge, Paramakudi. Pending appeal, they also filed an application in I.A.No.66 of 2012 for reception of additional evidence. The order passed by the District Revenue Officer cancelling the assignment patta issued in the individual names of the plaintiffs and the order passed by the High Court in WP(MD)No. 1430 of 2012 suspending the order of injunction passed by the Appellate Authority, were received as additional evidences and marked as Ex.B1 to Ex.B3. The first appellate Court, by taking into consideration that the assignment pattas issued in the names of plaintiffs were cancelled by the appellate authority, came to the conclusion that the plaintiffs failed to prove their independent possession or right to maintain the suit and consequently, allowed the first appeal. Aggrieved by the same, the plaintiffs are before this Court by way of this Second Appeal.

6.At the time of admission, this Court formulated the following substantial questions of law by order dated 23.09.2013:-

“Whether the First Appellate Court is right in accepting the additional documents filed in I.A.No.66 of 2012 and pronounce the judgment on the basis of cancellation of assignment of patta by the District Revenue Officer, Ramnad during the pendency of the civil suit is correct or not?”

7.The learned counsel for the appellants submitted that the first appellate Court ought not to have taken into consideration the order passed by the District Revenue Officer cancelling the patta issued in the names of the plaintiffs pending litigation. It is his submission of the learned counsel that the order passed by the District Revenue Officer is hit by Section 52 of the Transf