The court affirmed that established property rights must prevail against claims of encroachment, emphasizing the need for recovery of possession as per law.

COMMON JUDGMENT

The plaintiff in a suit for declaration of title and permanent injunction has preferred S.A.(MD).No.495 of 2011 challenging the judgment and decree of the First Appellate Court reversing the judgment and decree of the trial Court.

2.SA(MD).No.496 of 2011 has been filed by the first defendant in a suit for declaration of title, recovery of possession and mandatory injunction challenging the judgment and decree of the First Appellate Court reversing the judgment and decree of the trial Court.

(A).Pleadings of the parties before the Courts below are as follows:

3.The plaintiff in O.S.No.435 of 1996 has contended that he had purchased the suit schedule property of 16 ¼ cents out of 18.10 acres in Survey No.44/1 under a sale deed dated 08.11.1982 from one Singaramani. According to the plaintiff, those properties were allotted to Singaramani in oral partition among his family members and after his purchase, he is in exclusive possession and enjoyment of the suit schedule property. He had further contended that the first defendant had purchased northern side property on 13.09.1982 from one Subbiah who does not have any source of title.

4.According to the plaintiff, the first defendant who is the brother of the plaintiff had started constructing a rice mill in the last week of May 1992 encroaching the property of the plaintiff. The first defendant was taking hectic efforts to get electricity service connection. It was further contended that the plaintiff believed that the first defendant was putting up a construction in his own property. Only last year, when he had inspected the suit property, it was found that there is an encroachment into the suit schedule property. Though the first defendant had initially agreed to remove the encroachment, later he proceeded to seek electricity service connection. Therefore, the present suit for declaration of title, recovery of possession and mandatory injunction for removal of the construction and not to give electricity service connection.

5.The first defendant in the said suit filed a written statement contending that he is enjoying the northern side property by purchasing it from one Subbiah on 13.09.1982 and he is possession and enjoyment of the same. It was further contended that the first defendant is making construction of the rice mill within the property which he got on partition between himself and the first defendant. According to the defendant, his property was subdivided as 44/1L1 and separate patta and tax receipt have been issued. He had further contended that he had obtained clearance from the revenue officials and other authorities and has put up the rice mill.

6.In O.S.No.435 of 1996, an additional written statement was filed by the first defendant disputing the title of the plaintiff. In the said additional written statement, the first defendant reiterated that he had put up rice mill only in the northern 16 ¼ cents which he had purchased from one Subbiah and the rice mill is in the southern boundary of 16 ½ cents which exclusively belongs to him. In the additional written statement, it was further pointed out that the rice mill is the joint property of the plaintiff and the first defendant as per sale deed dated 24.11.1986 in which the plaintiff had relinquished his right of 16 ½ cents in favour of the first defendant. Out of which, 7 cents of northern end portion has been joined with the rice mill property and also marked as Survey No.44/1L1. Hence, he prayed for dismissal of the suit.

7.The first defendant in O.S.No.435