JUDGMENT

The plaintiff is the appellant.

2. The plaintiff filed a suit for permanent injunction. The suit was dismissed by the trial Court. The plaintiff filed A.S.No.12 of 2016 before Additional Sub-Court, Karur. The learned Subordinate Judge was pleased to dismiss the appeal. As against the concurrent findings, the present second appeal has been filed by the plaintiff.

3. The plaintiff has contended that the suit schedule properties are village natham and his father has encroached upon the said properties 75 years ago and he had been in possession and enjoyment of the suit schedule properties as exclusive owner. After the demise of his father, the property devolved upon him and he is in possession and enjoyment of the same. The plaintiff further contended that in support of his possession, the revenue authorities have granted a patta in his favour. Since his father is in possession of the suit schedule properties for more than 75 years, the plaintiff has also acquired title by adverse possession. The plaintiff further contended that they have mortgaged the suit schedule properties with Karur Co-operative Land Development Bank Ltd., by executing a simple mortgage on 30.03.2000. According to the plaintiff, the defendant has no manner of right or title. But attempting to disturb the possession of the plaintiff.

Hence, the present suit for permanent injunction.

4. The defendant filed a written statement disputing the lie of the suit schedule properties. According to the defendant, he is the owner of 4.620 square feet in survey No.818/A. According to the defendant, the said property has been purchased by him on 27.03.1994 under Exhibit B.3 from one Muthu Krishnan for valuable consideration. Based upon the said agreement, he is in possession and enjoyment of the suit schedule properties for more than 16 years. The defendant has further contended that the plaintiff is having properties on the eastern and western side of the defendant,s property. Hence, the plaintiff is attempting to grab the property of the defendant. According to the defendant, the patta issued in favour of the plaintiff does not relate to the suit schedule properties, but to the adjacent property on the eastern side. Hence, he prayed for dismissal of the suit.

5. The trial Court after a perusal of Exhibit A.1, came to a conclusion that there is a difference between the extent mentioned in Exhibit A.1- mortgage deed and the suit schedule property. The trial Court further found that Exhibit A.2-patta has been issued in favour of the plaintiff on 03.10.2013, which is after suit. The trial Court also found that the plaintiff has not established his possession over the suit schedule properties on the date of filing of the suit.

6. The trial Court further found that the plaintiff in his deposition as P.W.1 has admitted that the defendant has put up a thatched house in the suit schedule properties and he is residing in the said house. The trial Court also relied upon Exhibit B.3 to arrive at a finding that the defendent is in possession of the suit schedule properties. Though the plaintiff has contended that he is in possession of the suit schedule properties for more than 75 years, Exhibit A.1-mortgage deed does not disclose the same. Though in the pleadings the plaintiff has contended that by way of long possession, he has acquired title to the suit schedule properties, during deposition, the plaintiff has contended that his father has purchased the suit schedule properties and the sale deeds have been deposited before the Co- operative Bank as a security for the loan. The extent of property under Exhibits A.1 and A.2 is mentioned as 0.1826 square meter. But in the suit schedule property, the extent is mentioned as 0.1826 square feet. According to the trial Court, the plaintiff is not sure about the extent of the suit schedule property. The trial Court arrived at a finding that the plaintiff has not established his possession over the suit schedule properties and dismissed