The court affirmed that the properties in dispute were correctly identified as belonging to the plaintiff based on the partition deed, emphasizing the importance of boundary descriptions in property ownership.

JUDGMENT

The Appeal Suit is directed against the order passed in O.S.No.60 of 2016, dated 23.02.2024, on the file of II Additional District and Sessions Court, Turicorin.

2. For the sake of convenience and brevity, the parties will hereinafter be referred as per their status/ranking in their original suit.

3. The suit is to declare that the suit properties are belonging to the plaintiffs and for consequential permanent injunction restraining the defendants and their men from in any manner interfering with the plaintiffs' peaceful possession and enjoyment of the suit properties.

4. Pending suit, the sole plaintiff died and his legal representatives got themselves impleaded as the plaintiffs 2 to 4. The case of the plaintiff is that the suit properties were allotted to him in the partition deed, dated 02.12.1959 entered into betweent the plaintiff, his father and brothers, that the suit properties were allotted to the deceased first plaintiff in II Schedule as items 1 and 4 and since then, the first plaintiff had been in peaceful possession and enjoyment of the same by letting out to the various tenants, that the first defendant who is the step brother of the first plaintiff was allotted with V schedule of properties in the partition deed, that the first defendant has already alienated all the properties allotted to him in the partition, that the first defendant without any legal basis claiming that he is having rights in the items 1 and 4 of II schedule of properties in the partition deed, which were allotted to the first plaintiff, has attempted to interfere with the tenants of the suit properties, that the first defendant has applied to the Ettayapuram Town Panchayat to change the property tax assessments in respct of the suit buildings in his favour, that the first defendant has also filed a writ petition in W.P.(MD)No.9221 of 2015 and obtained orders directing the panchayat to consider his application for name transfer, that since the plaintiff has raised objections, the panchayat has refused to effect name changes and directed the parties to approach the competent civil Court, that even thereafter, the first defendant has attempted to alienate the suit properties, the plaintiff was constrained to issue a public notice in Dinamalar daily on 09.12.2015, for which the first defendant has issued a reply notice with false and untenable allegations, that the plaintiff has also issued rejoinder notice disputing the contentions in the reply notice, that the first defendant in order to grab the properties, has then lodged a complaint before the Ettayapuram Police, that thereafter the first defendant sold the shops Nos.32, 34 and 36 to the second defendant claiming that the properties allotted to him under the third item of IV schedule, that the properties allotted to the first defendant in the third item of V shcedule were already sold in the years 1989 and 1981 and as such, no other properties were available to him to alienate the same to the second defendant, that the