JUDGMENT

The defendant in the suit is the appellant. The suit was laid for declaration of title and for consequential injunction restraining the appellant/defendant from trespassing into the suit property or committing act of waste. The suit was decreed by the trial Court and confirmed in the first appeal and hence, the appellant is before this Court.

2. According to the plaint averments, the suit property was originally belonged to the father of the deceased 1st respondent/plaintiff viz., Chellian. After death of his father, the deceased 1st respondent/plaintiff inherited the suit property and he has been in possession and enjoyment of the same. It was also averred that patta to the suit property was obtained by the 1st respondent and he has been paying tax to the Government regularly. It was specifically averred in the plaint that the appellant/defendant tried to commit trespass into the suit property and also commit act of waste and hence, the respondent was constrained to file the suit for the above said relief. Pending second appeal, the 1st respondent/plaintiff passed away and his legal representatives were brought on record as respondents 2 to 8. 3. The appellant/defendant filed a written statement and contested the suit. In the written statement filed by the appellant/defendant, the title and possession of the plaintiff was specifically denied. It was averred in the written statement that originally the property was belonged to one Chellian and he died leaving behind his wife, Thankamma Nadachi; son, Selvaraj; and daughter, Chellammal. There was an oral arrangement in their family and the property was allotted to the share of Thankamma Nadachi and Selvaraj. The said two persons sold the suit property to the appellant/defendant under Ex.B.7, dated 10.01.1981. Accordingly, the appellant traced his title to the suit property and he also claimed possession over the same. It was further claimed that the appellant had put up a building in the suit property and has been residing thereon. Subsequently, the building got damaged in the rain and the appellant sought for approval of the plan for putting up new construction in the suit property and now there is a thatched house in the suit property.

4. Before the trial Court, the deceased 1st respondent/plaintiff was examined as P.W.1 and he marked 20 documents as Ex.A.1 to Ex.A.20. On behalf of the appellant/defendant, one Chellammal and Ponnian Nadar were examined as D.W.1 and D.W.2 and the appellant marked 16 documents as Ex.B.1 to Ex.B.16.

5. The trial Court, on consideration of oral and documentary evidences, came to the conclusion that the 1st respondent/plaintiff proved his title and possession over the suit property and consequently, granted a decree for declaration and injunction as prayed for. Aggrieved by the same, the appellant/defendant filed an appeal in A.S.No.199 of 1997 before the Sub Court, Padmanabhapuram. The first appellate Court concurred with the findings rendered by the trial Court and dismissed the first appeal. Aggrieved by the concurrent judgments of the Courts below, the appellant/defendant is before this Court.

6. As mentioned earlier, the 1st respondent died pending second appeal and respondents 2 to 8 were brought on record as his legal representatives.

7. This Court, at the time of admission, formulated the following substantial questions of law:

“(i) Whether the Courts below are correct in granting a judgment and decree for declaration of title and enjoyment and injunction in favour of the plaintiff, when the plaintiff has not produced any title deed for the property in favour of himself or his alleged predecessor-in-title?

(ii) Whether the plaintiff is entitlement to a decree for declaration and injunction, when he has not located the suit property on the basis of any plan accompanying Exhibit A1 and even Exhibit A1 is not in the name of his father Chellian, but the same is in the name of one Chellakkan, and the same is not accompanied by any plan to loc