Boundary descriptions prevail over survey numbers in property disputes; encroachments are assessed based on established title.

JUDGMENT

The above second appeal arise out of the judgment and decree dated 15.02.2019 made in A.S.No.24 of 2018 on the file of the learned Sub Judge, Sathyamangalam, Erode District confirming the judgment and decree dated 16.04.2018 made in O.S. No. 11 of 2015 on the file of the learned District Munsif, Sathyamanagalam, Erode District.

2.The unsuccessful defendants have preferred this second appeal.

The plaintiff's case is that the suit property originally belong to her father Suppanna Goundar vide partition deed dated 09.10.1975, who executed a Will in favour of the plaintiff on 11.02.1993 and after his demise the plaintiff became the absolute owner of the suit property. The plaintiff is cultivating in the suit property. Therefore, the plaintiff is alone in possession and enjoyment of the suit property. The defendants are possessing land on the south of the suit property. While so, the defendants were attempting to plough their land by crossing through the plaintiff's land and the same was successfully prevented by the plaintiff. Since the attempt of the defendants to purchase the suit land failed, the defendants on 28.01.2015 stored the materials in the suit property for installing an iron fence in the suit property. After the suit, an Advocate Commissioner was appointed to note down the physical features in the suit property. While so, on 29.01.2015 before the Advocate Commissioner visited the suit property, the defendants have encroached an extent of 0.47 cents in the suit property without any authority. Hence, the plaintiff was constrained to file the above suit for declaration of title and for permanent injunction. After the alleged encroachment, the plaintiff amended the plaint, including the prayer for recovery of possession of the 'B' schedule property directing the defendants to remove the iron fence from the suit property and hand over the encroached portion to the plaintiff.

2.1.The claim of the plaintiff was resisted by the defendants stating that originally the father of the 4^th defendant namely Chenna Naicker and one Palaniappan son of Chinna Naicker jointly purchased a specific extent of Hc.1.86.5 in S.F.No.256 along with an extent of Hc.1.40.0 in S.F.No.228/2 of Sathyamangalam Village under the sale deed dated 04.07.1984. In a subsequent oral partition between them, the northern 2.30 acres, corresponding to T.S.Nos.7/2 and 7/3 was allotted to the share of Chenna Naicker and the southern 2.31 acres, corresponding to T.S.No.7/4 was allotted to Palaniyappan.

3.Thereafter, the said Chenna Naicker and the sons of Palaniyappan namely Muthuraj and Mohanraj entered into a registered cart track agreement dated 01.07.2009 measuring 226 ft. in length and 15 feet width within the western and northern portions of T.S.No.7/2. It is further submitted that the plaintiff's land in old S.f.No.283A, corresponding to new S.F.No.256/1 and T.S.No.7/1 is situate to the north of the above mentioned cart track in T.S.No.7/2. The plaintiff suppressing the existence of the said cart track in T.S.No.7/2 and by omitting to furnish the town Survey number of her property has filed the present suit which is liable to be dismissed.

4.It is further submitted that on 16.07.2010 the 4^th defendant and his father Chenna Naicker along with his brother and sisters entered into a registered partition deed with regard to their family properties. In the said partition deed, an extent of 2.08 acres in T.S.No.7/2 & 7/3 was allotted to this defendant's father Chenna Naicker under 'A' schedule, who in turn executed a registered Will on 16.07.2010 and in the said Will, the northern 1.04 acres in T.S.No.7/2 and T.S.No.7/3 was bequeathed to