JUDGMENT

The plaintiff is the appellant before this Court, challenging the judgment and decree in A.S.No.18 of 2014 on the file of the Principal Subordinate Court, Dharmapuri in and by which, the learned Judge has reversed the judgment and decree of the District Munisf cum Judicial Magistrate, Pennagaram in O.S.No.01 of 2008.

2. The facts in brief, which have led to filing of the above second appeal are herein below narrated and the parties herein are referred to in the same ranking as before the Trial Court.

The plaintiff had filed the suit O.S.No.01 of 2008 on the file of the District Munsif, Pennagaram for declaration and injunction restraining the defendants from interfering with the plaintiff's peaceful possession and enjoyment of the suit schedule property. It is the case of the plaintiff that the suit property and another property belonged to her husband, Kuzhandhaiyan @ Kuzhandhai and he was in possession and enjoyment of the same. By a Settlement Deed dated 20.05.2005, the said Kuzhandhaiyan @ Kuzhandhai had settled the said suit property upon the plaintiff, who has since been in possession and enjoyment of the same. The patta in respect of the suit property was in the name of the said Kuzhandhaiyan @ Kuzhandhai and the plaintiff has taken steps to mutate the patta in her name. The defendants are neighbouring land owners, who have no right, title or interest in the suit property. In this process, certain disputes arose between the plaintiff and defendants 1 to 3 with reference to damage to a tamarind tree. The defendants had threatened to trespass into the suit property and had been making attempts to do so. On 04.12.2007, the defendants had trespassed into the suit property and with a very great difficulty, the plaintiff had prevented the same. Therefore, she has come forward with the above suit.

3. The defendants had filed a written statement, which was adopted by the defendants 1 and 3. They had denied the allegations contained in the plaint and put the plaintiff to strict proof of the same. 4. It is the contention of the defendants that the suit schedule property was the joint family property of the plaintiff's husband Kuzhandhaiyan @ Kuzhandhai and defendants 1 to 3. On 07.01.1981, a registered partition was entered into between them, in and by which, S.No.551 in which the suit property is situate totally measured 3.82 acres. In the said survey No.551, 1.91 acres was allotted to the share of the said second defendant. Thereafter, the second defendant was in enjoyment of this extent of 1.91 acres. However, the plaintiff's husband totally suppressing the partition had got patta in respect of the larger extent, though he was only in enjoyment of 1.91 acres. In the property that fell to the share of the second defendant, there was a hut. In this hut, the plaintiff's husband and the second defendant were living. The same has fallen into ruins. Thereafter, on account of the harassment of the plaintiff and her husband, the second defendant had moved to another place and the plaintiff's husband had re-built the hut. The second defendant had not objected to the same, since the plaintiff's husband was his brother. The second defendant had further submitted that neither the plaintiff nor her husband had any right to the Well in S.No.550. The second defendant would reiterate that under the registered partition deed dated 07.01.1981 the plaintiff's husband was alloted only to an extent of 1.91 acres. Therefore, they sought for dismissal of the suit, which was filed in respect of an extent of 2.40 acres.

5. The suit was decreed by the learned District Munisf-cum-

Judicial Magistrate, Pennagaram. Challenging the same, the second defendant had filed an appeal in A.S.No.18 of 2014 on the file of the Principal Subordinate Court, Dharmapuri. The learned Subordinate Judge, Dharmapuri, considering Ex.B1-Registered partition deed dated 07.01.1981, observed that in the said Deed, the “C” schedule property was alloted to the second defendan