J U D G E M E N T

The unsuccessful plaintiff in the suit is the appellant. The appellant filed a suit for permanent injunction. The suit was dismissed by the Trial Court and the findings of the Trial Court were confirmed by the First Appellate Court. Aggrieved by the concurrent findings, the appellant/plaintiff has come by way of this second appeal.

2. According to the appellant/plaintiff, he purchased 50 cents of land in Old S.No.9/2A, New S.No.21/1 in Kengarai Village, Kothagiri Sub- District, The Nilgiris District from one Ghagiammal, who is the mother of respondents 1 and 3 and mother-in-law of 2nd respondent. It was further averred that plaintiff had been in possession and enjoyment of the suit property from the date of purchase. It was also claimed by the appellant that the property retained by his vendor was subsequently sold to one Bhojaraj. As the respondents attempted to interfere with the possession of the plaintiff, he was constrained to file a suit for bare injunction by giving the eastern boundary of the suit property as property of Bhojaraj.

3. The defendants filed written statement denying the averment of the appellant that property on the eastern side of the suit property was sold by them to Bhojaraj. It is the specific case of the respondents/defendants that they are having tea garden in the eastern side of the suit property and they have been cultivating in the said property. It is further stated that in order to grab the property of the defendants in the eastern side of the suit property, the plaintiff has come up with the above said suit by giving wrong description.

4. Before the Trial Court, the appellant/plaintiff was examined as PW.1 and yet another witness by name S.Murugesan was examined as PW.2. On behalf of the appellant/plaintiff, 7 documents were marked as Exs.A1 to A7. On the side of the respondents/defendants, the 3rd defendant was examined as DW.1 and one Thangavel was examined as DW.2. On behalf of the respondents/defendants, 5 documents were marked as Exs.B1 to B5.

5. The Trial Court on appreciation of oral and documentary evidences available on record, came to the conclusion that the plaintiff has not given correct boundary description of the suit property and the consequently, dismissed the suit. Aggrieved by the same, the appellant herein filed an appeal in A.S.No.14 of 2015 on the file of the Subordinate Court at Nilgiris, Udhagamandalam. The First Appellate Court also concurred with the findings of the Trial Court and dismissed the appeal. Aggrieved by the same, the appellant is before this Court.

6. The learned counsel appearing for the appellants submitted that the appellant purchased 50 cents of property in New S.No.21/1 (Old S.No.9/2A) in Kengarai Village, Kothagiri Sub-District, The Nilgiris District from Ghagiammal under Ex.A1-Sale Deed. When purchase of the suit property by the plaintiff was not disputed by the defendants, the Courts below ought not to have dismissed the suit. The learned counsel further submitted that the property retained by vendor on eastern side of the suit property was sold by the respondents to one Bhojaraj subsequently and therefore, the boundary description found in the plaint defers from the title document of the plaintiff. The appellant/plaintiff in the description of the property in the plaint has clearly mentioned the boundaries of the suit property mentioned in the title document Ex.A1 and also the present boundaries.

7. A perusal of the same would suggest that the eastern boundary of the suit property was mentioned as defendants' remaining property in the title document of the appellant. However, in the plaint, while giving the present boundaries of the suit property, appellant has mentioned it as Bhojaraj property. It is the specific case of the defendants that the property retained by them on the eastern side was not at all sold to Bhojaraj.

8. The learned counsel for the respondents submitted that said Bhojaraj has got property on the further east of