The principle that boundaries prevail over extent in property claims is upheld when assessing ownership disputes.

JUDGMENT

The unsuccessful defendants 1, 3 to 7 and 9 to 12 are the appellants herein. The respondents 1 and 2 herein/plaintiffs filed a suit in O.S.No.297 of 1996 seeking bare injunction against the appellants and other respondents. The said suit was dismissed by the Trial Court. The first appeal in A.S.No.29 of 2019 filed by the respondents 1 and 2 /plaintiffs was allowed by the first appellate court and consequently, the suit was decreed. Aggrieved by the same, the appellants have come before this court.

2. For the sake of convenience, the parties are referred to as per their ranking in the original suit.

3. According to the plaintiffs, the suit property was originally a cultivable land owned by one Amma Kannammal and she converted the same into a vacant site and sold the suit property in favour of one Padmavathy Ammal under a registered sale deed dated 14.09.1943. After the demise of said Padmavathy Ammal, her husband Thiruvengada Mudaliar sold northern half portion to one S.K.Jayarama Mudaliar under a registered sale deed dated 12.11.1961. The said S.K.Jayarama Mudaliar sold the said northern portion to one Ranganadha Mudaliar under a registered sale deed 15.07.1981. The plaintiffs purchased the northern portion from the said Ranganadha Mudaliar under a registered sale deed dated 29.11.1981, which was marked as Ex.A4.

4. The southern half portion of the property was sold by the said Amma Kannammal in favour of one Sundarammal under a registered sale deed dated 01.11.1943, who in turn sold the same to one Thangavelu Mudaliar under a registered sale deed dated 02.11.1961. The said Thangavelu Mudaliar sold the southern portion to one Ranganatha Mudaliar under a registered sale deed dated 05.07.1981. The 3^rd plaintiff, namely Saraswathy purchased the above said southern portion of the property from the said Ranganatha Mudaliar under a registered sale deed dated 29.11.1981, which was marked as Ex.A8. Thus, the plaintiffs claimed right over the entire property described as ABCD in the plaint plan.

5. It is the further case of the plaintiffs that they had put up a terraced house in a portion marked as ADNM in the plaint plan. It is also stated that they put up a thatched house in a portion shown as ZBXY in the plaint plan and the remaining extent of the property has been in their possession and enjoyment. The plaintiffs’ further case is that the defendants, by claiming that they purchased northern strip of land in the suit property, which is shown as ABRS in the plaint plan, from the legal heir of the said Amma Kannammal, claimed right over the same and attempted to interfere with the possession of the plaintiffs. Therefore, the plaintiffs were constrained to file the above suit for bare injunction restraining the defendants from interfering with their alleged possession.

6. The defendants resisted the suit on the ground that they purchased the strip of land in the suit property as shown in the plaint plan as ABRS under a registered sale deed dated 12.09.1996. It was the specific case of the defendants that the entire suit property shown as ABCD in the plaint plan had not been sold by Amma Kannammal, as claimed by the plaintiffs and she retained the northern strip of land with a north-south measurement of 14 feet and the same was sold by her legal heirs in favour of the defendants. It is also stated by the defendants that the plaintiffs constructed a terraced house on the western side of the property sold to the defendants by encroaching a portion of the property. It was fu