JUDGEMENT

This Second Appeal has been filed against the Judgement and Decree dated 11.11.2009 passed in A.S.No.3 of 2007 on the file of the Subordinate Court, Attur, confirming the judgement and decree dated 31.01.2005 passed in O.S.No.391 of 2000 on the file of the District Munsif Court, Attur.

2. The Appellants are the defendants.

The short facts of the plaintiff’s case are as under:-

3. The suit schedule properties were the self-acquired properties of the plaintiff. The plaintiff was in enjoyment of the same without any objection from anyone for more than 30 years and preferred a title through adverse inference. The suit property is Salem Highways Poramboke land on which the plaintiff had encumbered and put up a house and is in enjoyment. The electricity connection stands in the name of the plaintiff. The first defendant is the younger brother of the plaintiff and second defendant is the wife of the first defendant. At the request of the first defendant, the plaintiff permitted him to live in a portion of his house until the first defendant himself builds a house of his own. Taking advantage of the said permission, the first defendant got a separate electricity connection to the portion in which he was residing. On coming to know this, the plaintiff insisted the first defendant to vacate the premises. The door number of the plaintiff’s house is 32/C. During the pendency of the suit, the third defendant who is residing on the eastern side of the permitted portion proclaimed that he got the house from the second defendant and started to disturb the peaceful enjoyment of the plaintiff. Even before 30 years, the plaintiff got permission from the Panchayat to build a house and he is also paying the house tax without fail. Since the defendants are disturbing the possession of the plaintiff over the suit property, he has filed the suit for permanent injunction.

The short facts of the statement of 1st defendant adopted by 2nd defendant and 3rd defendant.

4. The claim of the plaintiff is false. The suit property belongs to Meyappan, who is the father of the plaintiff and the first defendant and the property was in joint enjoyment of the deceased Meyappan, plaintiff and the first defendant. Since the plaintiff is the elder brother of the first defendant, the first defendant consented to get the documents in his name. The village elders also convinced the first defendant that just because the documents are in the name of the plaintiff, he would not become the owner and the first defendant has also got a share; the first defendant continued to believe it. The suit property comprises two houses. By virtue of an oral partition, the plaintiff and the first defendant partitioned the same and as per the partition, the first defendant got the eastern portion and he is in enjoyment. As problem arose between the plaintiff and the first defendant, they entered a partition affirmation deed on 18.04.1997. Accordingly, the plaintiff consented to change the house tax assessment with respect to Door No.32/B in favour of the first defendant. He has also got a certificate from the Tahsildar to this effect. The third defendant purchased the portion of the house in occupation of the first defendant by virtue of a sale deed. Hence the plaintiff is not entitled to get any relief as prayed for.

5. On the side of the plaintiff, two witnesses were examined as P.W.1 & P.W.2 and EXs.A1 to A8 were marked. On the side of the defendants, four witnesses were examined as D.W.1 to D.W.4 and EXs.B1 to B5 were marked.

6. At the conclusion of the trial, the Trial Court considered the submissions of both parties and granted the relief of permanent injunction. Aggrieved over that, the defendants filed the first appeal and the First Appellate Court confirmed the judgement and decree of the Trial Court. Now, the defendants have filed the second appeal and the second appeal has been admitted on the following substantial questions of law:-

1. Whether the lower court has committed an