JUDGMENT

The appellants herein are the plaintiffs in the suit in O.S.No.88 of 2000 filed against the defendants/respondents herein for the relief of declaration and permanent injunction with regard to A and B schedule suit properties in survey No. 3, situated at Mangalmpadi Village, Kanchipuram taluk. The defendants denied the plaintiffs right over the suit property by contended that by way of purchase and adverse possession the defendants are in exclusive possession of the properties. Considering the oral and documentary evidence the Trial Court held that the suit property is Government Poramboku land, therefore the plaintiffs are not entitled for declaration. With regard to permanent injunction, it has been held that the plaintiffs are in possession of the suit property hence permanent injunction was granted in favour of the plaintiffs.

2. Aggrieved over the same, the plaintiffs preferred an appeal before the Subordinate Judge, kanchipuram, in A. S. No. 69 of 2008, the lower appellate Judge independently analysed the facts and evidence, dismissed the appeal and confirmed the findings of the Trial Court.

3. Challenging the same, the plaintiffs preferred this second appeal.

Parties are addressed as per the suit.

4. The Brief facts of the case are as follows:

Originally the suit was filed by one Saroja, wife of deceased Murugesan who is the original occupier of the A and B schedule suit property and remaining plaintiffs are legal heirs of the said Murugesan. The said Murugesan and the second defendant are brothers. Originally the Suit A and B schedule property was occupied and enjoyed by said Murugesan as cultivable land till his demise. Thereafter, his legal heirs/plaintiffs possessed and enjoyed the suit property by cultivating crops and coconut trees. During the life time of the said Murugesan he purchased the A schedule Property from one Ponnusamy and others through un-registered sale deed dated 23.02.1970/Ex.A3. Thereafter, he purchased B schedule property from one Gopal and others through sale deed/ Ex.A2 dated 24.04.1973 and also got electricity connection for the Well in B schedule property. While so, after the demise of the Murugesan, the second defendant caused interference in the enjoyment of the suit properties. So the plaintiffs gave a complaint before the Police, At that time the first plaintiff came to know that the second defendant fraudulently obtained sale deed dated 01.12.1983 by getting signature from the Saroja, with regard to 50 cents in B schedule property. As the first plaintiff is being a illiterate women, from her the second defendant fraudulently obtained signature and executed sale deed in favour of him. Hence, the plaintiff filed a suit for declaration and permanent injunction.

5. The Second defendant submitted that after the demise of his brother Murugesan he helped the first plaintiff and her family. While so, in the year 1983, out of family necessity the first plaintiff sold 50 cent in B schedule property for valid consideration from then he has been in possession and enjoyment of that property and also paying tax to the Government. Thereafter, in the year 1983, he purchased 30 cents in A Schedule suit property for a sum of Rs. 2000/- and remaining properties were enjoyed by the plaintiffs and other Co-sharers. Thereby he totally denied the plaintiffs right and possession over the suit property.

6. Trial Court framed 3 issues and on considering the submissions and evidence on either side, concluded that the suit properties are “Poramboku” land belongs to the Government, hence the Trial court refused to grant the relief of declaration claimed by the plaintiff. But held that the entire properties are under the enjoyment of the plaintiffs' family thereby granted permanent injunction against the defendants.

7. Aggrieved over the same, the defendants preferred an appeal in A.S No. 69 of 2008, before the Subordinate Court, Kanchipuram, wherein, the Lower appellate Court independently analysed the facts and ev