J U D G M E N T

This Second Appeal is focused as against the judgment and decree dated 19.01.2000 passed in A.S.No.198 of 1993 by the learned Subordinate Judge, Ariyalur, reversing the judgment and decree dated 23.12.1992 in O.S.No.233 of 1990 passed by the learned District Munsif, Jayankondam.

2. The suit is for declaration, declaring that the plaintiff is the absolute owner of the suit schedule property and for permanent injunction, restraining the defendants in interfering with the plaintiff's peaceful possession of the suit property.

3. For the sake of convenience, hereinafter the parties are referred to, as per their litigative status before the trial Court.

4. The laconic averments made in the plaint, are as follows:

[i] The suit schedule property measuring an extent of

0.04½ cents is a portion of the land situated on the eastern side of 76 cents comprised in Survey No.309/7 originally belongs to one Samy Naidu. He purchased the said property in the year 1957 from one Mottaiah Padayachi. Afterwards, on 15.04.1978, he sold out the said property to the plaintiff. Ever since from the date of purchase, the plaintiff is in the possession and enjoyment of the suit schedule property. For the suit schedule property, patta in Serial No.276 stands in the name of the plaintiff's husband. On the eastern side of plaintiff's property, the defendants are having the land in Survey No.309/9.

[ii] Originally, the land owned by the plaintiff is in the form of 2 feet height than the defendants' land. In between the plaintiff and the defendants land, number of country trees are existed. Those trees are maintained by the plaintiff. Now, the defendants are attempted to encroach the property owned by the plaintiff. On 15.07.1990, the defendants cut down the trees found in the border line.

[iii] The property measuring an extent of 0.04½ cents was marked in the plaint plan as EBCF. The entire land owned by the plaintiff was shown as ABCD. Now, the defendants cut down the trees found in BC area. In respect to the suit property, the defendants perfected the title by adverse possession also. Hence, it would be necessary to declare that the plaintiff is the absolute owner of the suit schedule property and also it is necessary to restrain the defendants in interfering with the plaintiff's peaceful possession. Hence, the suit.

5. The case of the first defendant, as averred in the written statement, is as follows:

[i] The EBCF portion shown in the plaint plan and the adjoining land situated on the eastern side, measuring an extent of 1 acre 36 cents belongs to this defendant. In the year 1966 itself, the first defendant and his brothers sold out the same to the second defendant. The first defendant is not a necessary party for the present suit. The plaintiff is liable to pay the compensatory costs to the first defendant.

6. The case of the second defendant, as averred in the written statement, is as follows:

[i] On 08.05.1966, the property measuring an extent of 1 acre 36 cents in Survey No.309/9 has been purchased by this defendant from the first defendant and his brothers. Ever since from the date of purchase, this defendant is in the possession and enjoyment of Survey No.309/9. There is no fence in the portion shown as BC in the plaint plan. In order to avoid the damages, the boundary has been raised to the tune of 2 feet. The said arrangement was made before the date on which the plaintiff has purchased her land.

[ii] The country trees found in the boundary line belongs to the second defendant. After due measurement, the Surveyor informed the plaintiff that the suit schedule property is not belongs to him. There is no necessity for this defendant in cutting down the trees found in the boundary. EF land is the boundary line, which separated the property owned by the plaintiff and the defendants. Now, the plaintiff has filed the present suit with false claim. Hence, the suit filed by the plaintiff is liable to be dismissed.

7. From the above averments, the learn