JUDGMENT

1) The appellants are the defendants in the suit in OS.No.131 of 2008 on the file of the District Munsif Court-cum-Judicial Magistrate, Vannur Taluk, Thindivanam.

2) The respondent in this appeal as plaintiff, filed the suit in OS.No.131/2008 for declaration of his title to the suit 'A' Schedule property and for consequential permanent injunction restraining the defendants/appellants from interfering with the plaintiff's peaceful possession and enjoyment of the suit properties.

3) The suit 'A' schedule property is described as an extent of 12 cents in Survey Number 181/22 in Periya Kozhuvari village in Vannur Taluk. The extent of 6 cents out of total extent of 12 cents in survey Number 181/22 is described as suit 'B' schedule property.

4) The case of the respondent herein, in the plaint is that the suit property is the absolute property of the plaintiff. It is his case that one Muthammal purchased the suit property by a registered sale Deed dated 11.12.1944 from one Kamatchiammal and the said Muthammal later executed a registered settlement Deed in favour of the plaintiff on 29.06.1966, when he was a minor. It is his further case that his father was in the management of the property till he became major and that the plaintiff became the absolute owner after attaining majority.

5) It is his specific case that suit 'B' schedule property is part of suit 'A'

schedule property which was obtained by him under the settlement Deed, which is marked as Ex.A2. Stating that the defendants have falsely obtained Patta in respect of suit 'B' schedule property and tried to interfere with the possession of plaintiff, the plaintiff came forward with the suit for declaration of title and consequential injunction.

6) The suit was resisted by the appellants, by specifically disputing the avernments in the plaint. It is the case of the defendants that Muthammal the predecessor in title of plaintiff, is the wife of one Koneri and the said Koneri purchased the properties on 11.12.1944, in the name of his wife. Stating that the said Koneri died leaving behind his wife one Muthammal and his brother by one Anandan, it is contended that the plaintiff is the son born through the said Anandan and Muthammal. The settlement Deed stated to have been executed by Muthammal in favour of the plaintiff is specifically denied in the written statement. It is further stated that the entire suit 'A' schedule property was in the joint possession and enjoyment of one Sambasivam and Kali. It is further stated that the said Sambasivam and Kali had divided the suit properties and other properties orally and in the said oral partition, the suit 'B' schedule property was allotted to the share of Sambasivam. It is further stated that the plaintiff's father Kali was given only an extent of 6 cents. Stating that the suit 'B' schedule property is in continuous enjoyment and possession of Sambasivam till his death and Patta and other revenue records were standing in the name of Sambasivam for a long period, the defendants as the legal heirs of the said Sambasivam, claimed title to the property which is described as suit 'B' schedule. It is also stated that the kist receipts filed by the plaintiff does not relate to the suit property.

7) The Trial Court after considering the documents Exs.A1 and A2 came to the conclusion that the plaintiff has established his title in respect of the property in Survey Number 181/22 measuring an extent of 12 cents which is described as suit 'A' schedule property. However, it was held by the trial Court that the plaintiff has failed to prove his possession in respect of the entire extent of suit property as he is in possession of 6 cents alone as revealed from the document Ex.A19.

8) In view of the findings of the Trial Court that the plaintiff has not proved his possession in respect of 6 cents which is described as suit 'B' schedule, though the declaratory relief was given in respect of 'A' schedule property, as regards the relief of permanent