The issue involved in both the Second Appeals are common and they arise out of a Common Judgment passed in A.S.No.8 of 2010 and A.S.No.16 of 2010, on the file of the Sub-Court, Poonamalee and hence both the Second Appeals are taken up together, heard and this Common Judgment is passed.

2.The appellant in S.A.No. 279 of 2014 filed a suit in O.S.No. 594 of 1998 against S.Anusuya and 2 others seeking for the relief of permanent injunction restraining them from in anyway trespassing or interfering with the peaceful possession and enjoyment of the plaintiff with respect to the property situated in grama natham New S.No.135/17(Old S.No.82/1 Part) Measuring 4434 Sq.feet. The case of the appellant is that the suit property belonged to Pachaiyappa Pandithar by virtue of a Koorchit dated 25.4.1940 and he died intestate leaving behind his wife and son. The appellant is the son and his mother who is the wife of Pachaiyappa Pandithar was originally the plaintiff in the suit. Their grievance was that the said S. Anusuya and 2others were attempting to interfere with the possession and enjoyment of the property and hence the suit came to be filed seeking for the relief of permanent injunction.

3.During the pendency of the suit, the wife of Pachaiyappa Pandithar died and the appellant as the son was impleaded and he prosecuted the suit. The suit was not defended and hence an ex parte decree came to be passed on 9.10.2003. Thereafter a petition was filed in I.A.No.1138 of 2005 by the said S.Anusuya and 2 others to condone the delay in filing the petition to set aside the ex parte decree and this petition was allowed by an Order dated 22.8.2006. Thereafter the ex parte decree was set aside and the suit was tried on merits.

4. In the meantime the appellant along with his son, represented through their Power of Attorney agent, executed a registered sale deed dated 14.7.2006 to an extent of 4110 Sq.ft. in the suit property in favour of the respondent in S.A.No.179 of 2012.

5.The above said S. Anusuya and 2 others who are the appellants in S.A.No.179 of

2012 filed a suit in O.S.No. 110 of 2007 seeking for the relief of permanent injunction against the respondent therein and one T.Subramani on the ground that they are in possession and enjoyment of the suit property in New S.No135/17 (Old S.No. 82/1 Part) to an extent of 7700 Sq.ft., they came up with a case to the effect that they have constructed a house in the suit property and there is a joint patta in their favour and that they are in possession and enjoyment of the property and that the defendants are utter strangers to the property who were attempting to interfere with their peaceful possession and enjoyment of the suit property. Hence the suit was laid seeking for the relief of permanent injunction.

6.The respondent in S.A. No. 179 of 2012 and who was the 1st defendant in that suit came up with a defence to the effect that originally a larger extent of property was owned by one MunuswamyPandithar and he had three sons viz. Basha Pandithar, PachaiyappaPandithar and Ganesa Pandithar. They entered into a Koorchit (Ex.B2) dated 25.4.1940 and thereby the A Schedule was allotted to Basha Pandithar, the B Schedule was allotted to Pachaiyappa Pandithar and the C Schedule was allotted to Ganesa Pandithar. It was further stated that Pachaiyappa Pandithar who was allotted the B Schedule property mortgaged the property that came to his share through a registered mortgage deed dated 7.12.1951 (Ex.B3) in favour of one MalligeswariAmmal. The mortgage deed was subsequently made over in favour of the 1st appellant S. Anusuya on 25.4.1960(Endorsement marked as Ex.B4). Thereafter Pachaiyappa Pandithar died and his son Nataraj who is the appellant in S.A.No. 279 of 2014 repaid the mortgage amount to the 1st appellant S. Anusuya and redeemed the mortgaged property on 26.9.1986 (Endorsement marked as Ex.B5). It was further stated that the appellants in S.A. No. 179 of 2012 fall under the branch of Basha