Settled possession can protect a possessor against the true owner, and courts must recognize this principle when adjudicating possession claims.

JUDGMENT

The Second Appeal is directed against the judgment and decree passed in A.S.No.144 of 2017, dated 30.08.2018, on the file of the Subordinate Court, Aranthangi, confirming the judgment and decree made in O.S.No.28 of 2009, dated 18.07.2017, on the file of the District Munsif Court, Aranthangi.

2. The appellant is the plaintiff. Admittedly, the first defendant is the wife of the second defendant and the plaintiff had married the second defendant's sister's daughter and as such, they are related to each other. It is not in dispute that the suit property measuring 0.27.5 Ares in S.No.4/11 of Sirunattanvayal Village, Aranthangi Taluk was owned by the second defendant and the second defendant has settled the suit property in favour of his wife – first defendant, vide settlement deed dated 17.08.1979.

3. The case of the plaintiff is that the defendants have decided to sell the suit property and the plaintiff has agreed to purchase the same, that the plaintiff has paid Rs.5,000/- as sale consideration on 27.05.1986 and the defendants have executed an unregistered sale deed in the presence of the former Panchayat President Ramachandran, son of Sivanthaperumal, Ganesan, son of Kunjuathiyappan, Ramaiah, son of Sathasiva Thevar and Avudai Thevar son of Subramaniya Thevar, that the defendants have handed over the possession of the suit property on the same date and since then, the plaintiff, by cultivating paddy, has been in possession and enjoyment of the same, that the plaintiff has been paying kists in the Patta No.13 standing in the name of the first defendant, that the plaintiff has then applied and obtained patta in his favour in Patta No.137, that the defendants have preferred an appeal before the Revenue Divisional Officer challenging the issuance of patta in favour of the plaintiff, that the Revenue Divisional Officer without conducting proper enquiry, has passed an order cancelling the issuance of patta, that when the plaintiff had visited the suit property to cultivate the paddy crops, the defendants have created issues and restrained them to enter into the suit property and that therefore, the petitioner was constrained to file the present suit claiming permanent injunction restraining the defendants and their men from in any manner interfering with his peaceful possession and enjoyment of the suit property.

4. The defence of the defendants is that the first defendant since the settlement deed has been in possession and enjoyment of the same, that the first defendant has been paying the kists for the land in patta No.13, that the plaintiff due to previous enmity between them, has created a forged and fraudulent sale deed with the help of his men as if the first defendant has sold her property, that the signatures found in the said document dated 27.05.1986 are not that of the defendants, that the plaintiff without the knowledge of the defendants, have changed the patta in his favour and hence, the defendants were constrained to prefer the appeal before the Revenue Divisional Officer, Aranthangi and the Revenue Divisional Officer, after due enquiry, has passed an order cancelling the patta issued in favour of the plaintiff, that there was no occurrence on 15.03.2009 as alleged by the plaintiff and that therefore, the suit is liable to be dismissed.

5. The learned trial Judge, upon considering the pleadings of both sides, has framed the following issues:

(1) Whether the plaintiff i