Ownership claims require substantial evidence to be upheld; courts usually defer to prior findings unless compelling reasons dictate otherwise.

JUDGMENT :

P. VADAMALAI, J.

1. This Second Appeal is filed against the judgment and decree, dated 19.02.2013 passed in A.S. No.17 of 2011 on the file of the learned Subordinate Judge, Paramakudi, partly reversing the judgment and decree, dated 30.08.2010 passed in O.S. No.59 of 2008 on the file of the District Munsif Court, Paramakudi.

2. The appellant is the 4 defendant, the 1 respondent is the plaintiff and the respondents 2 to 4 are defendants 1 to 3 in O.S.No.59 of 2008 on the st file of District Munsif Court, Paramakudi. The 1 respondent/plaintiff filed the suit for declaration, recovery of possession and permanent injunction in respect of the suit property.

3. For the sake of convenience, the parties are referred as plaintiff and the defendants as arrayed in O.S.No.59 of 2008 on the file of the District Munsif Court, Paramakudi.

4. Case of the plaintiff (1 respondent herein):

The property measuring 1897 ½ sq.ft in T.S.No.53/2 of Ward G. Block23, West Bharathi Nagar, Marudhupandiar Nagar, Paramakudi Town is the suit property. The suit property and its western side property originally belonged to one Kamalam Ammal & Pushpam Ammal, who purchased the same from its predecessor in title through registered sale deed, dated 23.12.1963. They sold the said property to one Rethinam Asari by way of registered sale deed, dated 07.03.1974. The said Rethinam Asari sold out the western side of the entire property to one Srinivasan, then he sold the rest of the said property, i.e., the suit property to the plaintiff by virtue of registered sale deed, dated 29.04.1982. The property originally bear S.No.183/4, then G.R.Survey No.87/1B, thereafter, T.S.No.53. The plaintiff is the absolute owner of the 4.3/8 cent in T.S.No.53. The plaintiff let the suit property to one Rakkammal, who is the mother of the defendants 1 and 2 for monthly rent at Rs.35/- on 21.11.1984. The tenant Rakkammal put up a thatched shed, she was paying land tax in her name and thereafter, she got patta with the assistance of the revenue officials. Coming to know these facts, the plaintiff filed a petition for cancellation of patta and patta in the name of Rakkammal was cancelled. Then the plaintiff filed the petition for issuance of patta before the Tahsildar, Paramakudi, who sent a report that there is poramboke measuring 105 sq.mt in T.S.No.53/2,3 as municipal park and so after obtaining permission from the 4^th defendant, patta can be granted. The plaintiff learnt that the land measuring 7 ½ cents in T.S.No.53 was converted into three parts, for which no notice was issued to the plaintiff. It is the duty of the defendants 3 and 4 to send proper notice to the plaintiff. Prior to said division of 7 ½ cents, the defendants 3 and 4 issued patta to Srinivasan, who purchased the western part of T.S.No.53/1. While the facts are so, the defendants 1 and 2 filed a suit in O.S.No.54 of 2008 against the plaintiff and the defendants for permanent injunction alleging that the suit property was government poramboke, in which they have been in possession for more than 40 years. In fact, the defendants 1 and 2 are inducted as tenant st and they are in possession of the suit property only as tenants. So, the 1 respondent/plaintiff filed the suit for declaration, recovery of possession and for permanent injunction.

5. Case of the Defendants 1 and 2 (Respondents 2 and 3 herein):

The defendants 1 and 2 filed a suit in O.S.No.54 of 2008 against the plaintiff for permanent injunction restraining them from interfering with their possession over the suit property. The defendants 1 and 2 denied the averments of the plaintiff. Their mother, Rakkammal, had been in possession of t