JUDGMENT

The defendants in the suit in O.S. No.730 of 2010 on the file of District Munsif Court, Erode, are the appellants in this second appeal. The respondents in this appeal, as plaintiffs, have filed a suit in O.S. No.730 of 2010, for permanent injunction restraining the appellants herein from interfering with the plaintiffs' possession and enjoyment of the suit property either by demolishing or by removing house building standing in the suit property.

2. The suit property is described as an extent of 1,332 Sq.ft. comprised in resurvey No.26/13 (0.02.5 Hectares) in Chithode Village, Erode District. In the plaint, the suit property is also described with reference to four boundaries and measurements. The case of the respondents plaintiffs is that the suit property originally belonged to the family of the plaintiffs' vendor and that by virtue of a partition dated 09.11.1981, the vendors of the plaintiffs got the property. The plaintiffs claim that they have purchased the property under two different documents dated 15.07.1987 and that they are in possession and enjoyment of the property right from the date of sale. The plaintiffs stated that they put up construction after availing housing loan from the bank in the year 1984 and that the building constructed by them was also approved by the local Panchayat. Sum and substance, the entire suit property along with the building claimed to be the property of plaintiffs which is also stated to be in their physical possession and enjoyment from the date of the sale i.e. from the year 1987. Stating that the defendants have made an attempt to demolish the portion of the building put up by the plaintiffs, the plaintiffs filed a suit for bare injunction.

3. The suit was contested by the appellants by stating that a portion of the suit property is part of State Highways. In paragraph 6 of the written statement, the defendants stated as follows:

“

...6. ,g;gpujpthjp rK:fk; ePjpkd;wj;jpy; bjhptpg;gJ vd;dbtd;why;.

Quite contrary to the stand taken in paragraph '6' of the written statement, the defendants have also stated in the written statement the following lines which is extracted hereunder for convenience:

“

... 10. nkYk; thjp nkw;fz;l ,lj;ij th';Fk;bghGJk;. mt;tplj;jpy; fl;olk;

fl;Lk;bghGJk; beL"rhiyj;Jiwapd; jilapd;ikr; rhd;W bgwg;gltpy;iy/ ,th; t';fpapy; fld; bgw;wjw;Fk;. tPl;Lthp. kpd; fl;lzk; brYj;jpajw;Fk; beL"rhiyj;Jiwia vt;tpjj;jpYk; fl;Lg;gLj;jhJ/ thjp. ,e;j 4k; gpujpthjpf;F ghj;jpag;gl;l beL"rhiyj;Jiwapdh; ,lj;jpy; (hP/r/vz;/20) 49/56 rJu kPl;lh; mstpw;F Mf;fpukpg;g[ bra;Js;shh; vd;gJ bjhpatUfpwJ/ beL"rhiyj;Jiw tpjpKiwfspd;go khepy rhiyapy; cs;s Mf;fpukpg;g[fs; midj;Jk; mfw;wg;gl;L tUk; epiyapy; thjpapd; bgha;ahd ,e;j jhthit ,e;j gpujpthjpfs; bryt[j;

bjhifa[ld; js;Sgo bra;jpl rK:fk; ePjpkd;wj;ij gpuhh;j;jpf;fpwhh;fs;.”

Of course in the paragraph 10 of the written statement, the defendants have stated that the plaintiffs have encroached State Highways land which is adjoining plaintiff's property in Survey No.26/13. According to the defendants, the encroached portion measures 4.2 Metres x 11.8 Metres. The defendants tried to make out a case in their pleading that a small portion of suit property comes within State Highways.

4. The trial Court framed necessary issues. The plaintiffs filed Ex.A1 to A7 apart from examining P.W.1 and P.W.2. P.W.2 is the Executive Officer of Chithode Village Panchayat. On defendants' side documents Ex.B1 to B4 were marked and two witnesses were examined. Both D.W.1 and D.W.2 are from the Highways Department. The trial Court, after holding that the plaintiffs are in possession of the property, has come to a conclusion that no part of Highways in encroached by the plaintiffs. Since the defendants have not made any effort to prove their case that the plaintiffs have encroached any portion which belongs to the Highways Department, the trial Court granted a decree for injunction. 5. One of the legal objections raised by the defendants relying upon Section 14 of Tam