The court maintained that prior judgments and actual possession govern ownership claims in property disputes, reaffirming the principle of res judicata in civil matters.

JUDGMENT

Aggrieved over the concurrent finding of the trial Court decreeing the suit for permanent injunction in respect of east to west 20 ft and north 15 feet and north to south 151 ft. the plaintiff has filed the present Second Appeal.

2. The parties are arrayed as per their own ranking before the trial Court.

3. The brief facts leading to filing of this Second Appeal is as follows :

It is the case of the plaintiff that the suit property is an ancestral joint family property of Kanjamalai's father of Pachiyappan. The said Pachiyappan had two brothers namely Munusamy and Chinnasamy. Munusamy had no legal heirs and hence Pachiyappan and Chinnasamy orally partitioned the suit property about 60 years back. Eastern half is allotted to Chinnasamy and western half is allotted Kanjamalai. Chinnasamy died intestate leaving behind his wife Lakshmi Ammal and two sons namely Samikannu and Elumalai as his legal heirs. Lakshmi Ammal and her two sons sold their share in the suit property for valuable consideration under a registered sale deed dated 25.03.1950 to Kanjamalai. Kanjamalai was allotted western side in the oral partition and Kanjamalai purchased the other half for his convenient enjoyment and from the date of purchase he has been in possession and enjoyment of the suit property till his demise. After his demise, the plaintiffs are in possession of the suit property as absolute owners. As per actual measurement East to West on the southern side is 22ft. and 20ft. on the north side and north to south 151 ft. While executing the sale deed by Lakshmi Ammal, it was approximately stated as 9 ft. east to west and north to south 90ft. But Kanjamalai was enjoying 22ft. east to west and 151 ft. north to south in the suit property. The plaintiff is enjoying the same after the demise of Kanjamalai.

4. The defendants are having their house on the eastern side of the suit property. They have no right, or title or interest in the suit property. The Eastern portion adjacent to the suit property namely Survey No.506/B has been enjoyed by the plaintiff for a long time. The defendants attempted to trespass into the suit property. The plaintiff have already filed a suit against the defendants in O.S.No.150 of 1999 on the file of the I Additional District Munsif, Tiruvannamalai for declaration and for permanent injunction. However, the suit was dismissed on 19.07.2001. In the previous suit, the defendants had admitted the title of the plaintiff in respect of the suit property. Taking advantage of the earlier suit in O.S.No.151 of 1999 ended in their favour, the defendants have attempted to trespass into the suit property in the second week of June, 2002. Hence the suit.

5. The defendants denying the allegation in the plaint submitted that Kanjamalai and his brother was in possession of 18 ft east to west, on the south 15 ft on the north. The said Kanjamalai mortgaged the same in favour of one Selvi under the mortgage deed dated 27.02.1983. The plaintiffs and their predecessor in title are not in possession and enjoyment of the suit property measuring 22 ft. east to west on the south and 20 ft. on the north and the same has been decided in O.S.No.150 of 1999. The first defendant was in possession and enjoyment of the thatched house and vacant and same measures east to West 22 ft. on the south 15 ¼ feet on the north and north to south 161 ft. The first defendant has settled the property in favour of the fourth defendant on 10.02.1999. It is the contention of the defendant that the defendant is in possession and enjoyment of the suit property and 15 ft on the north. The dispute in O.S.No.151 of 1999 is that in respect