JUDGMENT

This Second Appeal has been filed by the legal heirs of the deceased 2nd defendant, who had suffered a decree of mandatory injunction on 26.02.2014 in O.S.No.1118 of 2007 on the file of the learned I Additional District Munsif, Coimbatore, thereby directing the 1st defendant to cancel the name of the 2nd defendant from the patta bearing No.1184 for the suit property which came to be confirmed in Appeal Suit in A.S.No.68 of 2014 by the learned Principal Subordinate Judge, Coimbatore, by decree and judgment dated 11.07.2018. 2. The 1st respondent is the plaintiff in the suit. The deceased Murugesan was the 2nd defendant and the 2nd respondent - Tahsildar, South Taluk, is the 1st defendant in the suit. The suit was filed by the 1st respondent for mandatory injunction directing the 1st defendant to cancel the name of the 2nd defendant from the patta bearing No.1184 relating to the suit property situated at Pooluvapatti Village in Coimbatore South Taluk.

3. The case of the plaintiff is that he is the absolute owner of the suit property which is the agricultural land. The patta for the entire property was in the name of the plaintiff exclusively for several years. The plaintiff has been in possession and enjoyment of the suit property for several years. While so, in the third week of October, 2005, the plaintiff came to know that 1st defendant Tahsildar had included the name of the 2nd defendant> Immediately after coming to know about the same, the plaintiff made representations to the 1st defendant seeking to remove the name of the 2nd respondent from the patta for the suit property. Despite the same and repeated representations made subsequently, the 1st defendant did not remove the name of the 2nd defendant. Taking advantage of the situation, the 2nd defendant is trying to sell the suit property. The 2nd defendant is attempting to trespass into a portion of the suit property and to encroach upon the same on the strength of the recent inclusion of his name in the patta. The inclusion of name of the 2nd defendant is illegal and unlawful. No notice was issued to the plaintiff before the name of the 2nd defendant was included in the patta and thereby principles of natural justice were violated. Hence, the suit. 4. The second defendant resisted the suit inter alia contending that the suit is frivolous and vexatious and not maintainable in law and on facts. The present suit has been filed as counter blast to the suit filed by the 2nd defendant in O.S.No.662 of 2007 on the file of the I Additional District Munsif. This defendant has become the absolute owner of the suit property pursuant to the sale deed executed on 31.08.1987 by this mother. He has been in possession and enjoyment of the suit property till date. The suit property is a vacant site measuring 29 cents. The plaintiffs are having their respective share in the property adjoining to the 2nd defendant property. The plaintiff has no right to interfere with the defendant's peaceful possession and enjoyment of the suit property. His name was included in the patta after following due procedure and principles of natural justice. There is no cause of action and the causes of action alleged in the plain are false and invented for the purpose of suit. The suit is liable to be dismissed.

5. Based on the above pleadings of either parties, the court below had framed the following issues for trial:-

(1) Whether the plaintiff is entitled to the relief of mandatory injunction as prayed for?

(2) To what other reliefs the plaintiff is entitled for?

During trial, on the side of the plaintiff, the plaintiff examined himself as P.W.1 and proved as many as documents 8 documents as Ex.A1 to A.8 and on the side of the defendants, the 2nd defendant examined himself as D.W.1 and proved as many as 10 documents as Ex.B.1 to B.8.

6. The learned I Additional District Munsif after having considered the oral and documentary evidence adduced by either parties had found that the 2nd defendant's mother wh