JUDGMENT

The appellants herein are the defendants in the suit in O.S.No.222 of 2005 on the file of the District Munsif Court, Nagapattinam filed by the 1st plaintiff for the relief of declaration to declare the decree passed in O.S.No.494 of 2000 is fraudulent and invalid under law and also praying for a relief of permanent injunction for an extent of 0.02 ½ cents with house bearing Door No.10C in Survey No.15/8 of Pachanthoppu, Thittacheri Village, Nagapattinam.

2. For the sake of convenience, the parties are referred as per the ranking in the suit.

3. The defendants 1 to 3 are the Collector and Revenue Officials contested the case stating that the 1st plaintiff is not having any title over the suit property and the decree obtained in O.S.No.494 of 2000 is also contested by these defendants. Moreover, the suit property belongs to one viz., Sheik Alautheen who executed an Inam Sasanam in favour of Thittacherry Special Panchayat for the purpose of laying a tar road for the welfare of the public. As per the gift deed, the Panchayat is the absolute owner of the suit property, thereby denied the 1st plaintiff's title. The fourth and fifth defendants, who are individuals filed their written statements stating that there exist a Village Kacha Road annexing two villages Thittacherry and Kattumangudi and a land belongs to one viz., Sheik Alautheen, who was the then Panchayat President, gifted 24 cents of land through the registered document for the purpose of laying road for the public. In the meanwhile, like 1st plaintiff, others trespassed into the suit property and put up a hut in between the mud road and the Village canal, thereby causing hindrance. Hence, the suit in O.S.No.494 of 2000 was filed to remove the encroachment and the said suit was decreed as prayed for and the 1st plaintiff was also bounded by the said decree as one of the enchroachers, thereby denied the 1st plaintiff's claim.

4. Before the trial court, issues were framed and both parties adduced evidence and documents also marked. Considering all the evidence and documents, the trial judge held that the 1st plaintiff has not proved her title over the property, but at the time of filing of the suit, she was in possession of the property and in the decree passed in O.S.No.494 of 2000, the 1st plaintiff is not a party to the proceedings. Hence the said decree did not bind the 1st plaintiff. However, in respect of her possession in the property, relief of permanent injunction was granted and in respect of the declaration of title over the property was dismissed.

5. Challenging the said findings, the defendants 1 to 3 and 4 and 5 have separately filed two appeals in A.S.Nos.23 of 2010 and 54 of 2010 on the file of Subordinate Judge, Nagapattinam. The learned appellate Judge had independently analyzed all the facts and evidences and finally held that the suit in O.S.No.494 of 2000, the 1st plaintiff is not a party to the proceeding and the said suit also not filed by the 1st plaintiff in the representative capacity. So, the relief of declaration in respect of the decree passed in O.S.No.494 of 2000 is not granted in favour of the 1st plaintiff. But, in respect of relief of permanent injunction, the lower appellate Judge held that the 1st plaintiff is inconsistent to the plea with regard to title over the property by way of adverse possession and as per the provisions of Kuduyiruppu (Conferment of Ownership) Act 1971. So, the learned appellate Judge did not accept her title in respect of the property. But, on considering the documents like House tax receipt on the date of filing of the suit, the learned appellate judge held that the 1st plaintiff is in possession of the property and already a tar road has also been laid, thereby, the suit property is not causing any hindrance to the road and the appeal was dismissed by confirming the trial Court findings.

6. Challenging the said findings, the defendants 1 to 3 who are Government Officials preferred this appeal stating that