JUDGMENT :

P. Dhanabal, J.

This Second Appeal has been preferred as against the Decree and Judgment passed by the learned III Additional Subordinate Judge, Coimbatore in A.S.No.20 of 2010 dated 19.12.2014.

2. The appellant is the defendant and the respondent is the plaintiff in the main Suit. The respondent herein filed the suit in O.S.No.2683 of 2006 on the file of the learned II Additional District Munsif Court, Coimbatore for the relief of declaration to declare that the plaintiff is the owner of the suit property and consequential relief of recovery of possession and mandatory injunction and to remove the encroachment made by the defendant in the suit property and for permanent injunction restraining the defendant from entering into the suit property. The said suit was dismissed by the trial Court. Aggrieved by the said Decree and Judgment, the plaintiff has preferred the Appeal Suit. The First Appellate Court reversed the Judgment of the trial Court and decreed the suit by allowing the appeal by way of Decree and Judgment dated 19.12.2014. Aggrieved by the said Decree and Judgment of the First Appellate Court, the present Second Appeal has been preferred by the defendant.

3. For the sake of convenience and brevity, the parties herein are referred as plaintiff and defendant, as referred before the trial Court.

4. The brief averment of the plaint are as follows:-

4.1. The suit property is a building and the same was purchased by the plaintiff from one T.Damodarasamy under the registered sale deed dated 01.03.1999. The said property forms part of agricultural land comprised in S.F.No.538/1 of Vellalore Village. The subject matter of the site in question is Plot no.63 and the total extent of area is 2560 sq.ft., The plaintiff is working in Southern Railway, while so, in the month of July – August 2006, the defendant tress-passed into the plaintiff’s vacant land on the western side and had put up structures by occupying about 7 feet, East-West and 65 feet, North-South and the defendant is in illegal possession of the land to an extent of 455 Sq.ft., the defendant is in unlawful possession of the property, therefore, the plaintiff has filed the suit.

5. The brief averments of the Written statement filed by the defendant are as follows:-

5.1. The suit is not maintainable and the plaintiff is put to strict proof of averments except those that are specifically admitted herein. The allegations that the defendant occupied 7 feet East-West and 65 feet North-South is denied. The plaintiff is not entitled to any relief sought for in the plaint, in fact, the defendant purchased the Site No.62 to an extent of 4 cents, 338 sq.ft., with specific four boundaries from one T.Damodarasamy by way of registered sale deed dated 24.01.2000, the defendant’s property situated on the western side of the plaintiff’s property. Originally, site Nos.62 and 63 were purchased by Damodarasamy through the sale deed dated 04.03.1998. The defendant purchased the western side of the plaintiff’s property with specific measurements and boundaries. The house sites are not approved by the local authorities and the defendant has paid development charges for approval of his Site No.62. The defendant also constructed a house in site no.62 after obtaining proper building approval and the construction was completed in the year 2003.

5.2. The defendant is paying house tax till date. The defendant also obtained loan for construction of building from M/s The Sakthi Co- operative House Building Society Ltd., Coimbatore. Ever since the date of purchase of the property in Site No.62, the defendant is in possession and enjoyment of the property. The defendant never interfered or encroached the plaintiff’s property. The suit is not maintainable for non-joinder of necessary parties, since the land owners of the property situated on the eastern side of the plaintiff’s property are necessary parties to the suit and ought to be impleaded. The defendant constructed a compound wall on the eas