JUDGMENT

The defendants 1 and 2 are the appellants herein.

2.The plaintiff filed O.S.No.414 of 1992 before the II Additional District Munsif Court, Dindigul for declaration of title and permanent injunction. The suit was decreed by the trial Court. The defendants filed A.S.No.116 of 1999 before the Principal Subordinate Court, Dindigul. The learned Subordinate Judge was pleased to dismiss the appeal. As against the concurrent judgment and decree, the present second appeal has been filed by the defendants.

3.The plaintiff has contended that the suit schedule property was originally a Government poromboke property and from the year 1967 onwards, he was in possession of the said property by carrying out agricultural operations. The plaintiff further contended that in October 1977, he gave a representation to the Revenue Divisional Officer, Dindigul for assignment of the suit schedule property in his favour. Based upon the said representation, an order of assignment was granted in favour of the plaintiff under Exhibit A2 on 29.11.1980. Thereafter, the revenue patta was granted in favour of the plaintiff under Exhibit A1 on 05.09.1983. The plaintiff had further contended that he was paying tax to the said property under Exhibits A3 to A10. He further contended that even during the UDR proceedings, UDR patta was granted in favour of the plaintiff under Exhibit A11. The plaintiff had further contended that the defendants are the adjacent owners and they do not have any right, title or possession over the suit schedule property. But, they made an attempt to trespass into the suit schedule property on 08.03.1992 . Hence, the present suit for declaration of title and permanent injunction.

4.The defendants filed a written statement contending that the plaintiff and the defendants are the brothers. According to the defendants, the suit schedule property and other properties in Survey Nos. 814/1 and 814/2 were purchased by the defendants and their father by utilising the family funds under Exhibit B1 dated 28.09.1970. Though the suit schedule Survey Nos.815 and 838 were also part of Exhibit B1 sale deed, they were not mentioned in the sale deed, in view of the fact that the said land is a Government poromboke land. According to the defendants, the poromboke was occupied by the family of the plaintiff and the defendants. The suit schedule property was treated only as a family property. Thereafter, a representation was given jointly by all the brothers seeking assignment of the land in favour of the family. However, the plaintiff being the eldest male member, the assignment was granted in favour of the plaintiff. The defendants further contended that in the year 1983, the family members have partitioned orally including the suit schedule property.

5.According to the defendants, the suit schedule properties were allotted to the share of the defendants and other brothers. The defendants filed a sketch to indicate that the portion marked as 'A' was allotted to the plaintiff, 'B' was allotted to the share of the first defendant and 'C' was allotted to the share of another brother namely Arulanandam whose wife has been arrayed as second defendant. The present suit for declaration of title is not maintainable on the ground that right from the beginning, the suit schedule properties were treated as joint family properties and the assignment was granted in the name of the plaintiff only being the eldest male member of the family. That part, all family properties have already been partitioned among the brothers and the present suit schedule properties were not allotted to the share of the plaintiff. Hence, the plaintiff is not entitled to a prayer for declaration of title. The defendants further contended that they have put up the houses within the suit schedule property and the suit houses are already assigned with the property tax in their respective names. The defendants further contended that there are electricity connection to the said houses and