The High Court's jurisdiction under Section 100 CPC is confined to substantial questions of law, without re-assessing evidence or entering factual disputes.

JUDGMENT :

K. MURALI SHANKAR, J.

The Second Appeal is directed against the judgment and decree made in A.S.No.71 of 2018, dated 28.03.2022, on the file of the Principal Subordinate Court, Kumbakonam, confirming the judgment and decree passed in O.S.No.3 of 2014, dated 09.07.2018, on the file of the Principal District Munsif Court, Kumbakonam.

2. The appellants are the plaintiffs 1 and 2. The deceased Sarbunnisa Begam filed a suit in O.S.No.3 of 2014 on the file of the Principal District Munsif Court, Kumbakonam claiming permanent injunction restraining the defendants and their men from any manner interfering with the plaintiff's peaceful possession and enjoyment of the suit property. Pending first appeal, the sole plaintiff died and her legal representative was impleaded as the second respondent in the first appeal and the fourth respondent in the present Second Appeal. The defendants 3 to 5 who also filed the first appeal are now shown as the respondents 1 to 3 in the present Second Appeal.

3. For the sake of convenience and brevity, the parties will hereinafter be referred as per their status/ranking in their original suit.

4. The case of the plaintiff, in brief, is as follows:

a). The suit properties comprise three items of cultivable wet (nanja) lands situated in Re-survey Nos. 258/4, 263/1 and 273/8 of Krishnapuram Village, Kumbakonam Taluk, measuring a total extent of 1.60 acres. The plaintiff purchased the said properties under two registered sale deeds dated 05.09.2001, bearing Document Nos. 452 and 453 of 2001. The plaintiff was also the owner of adjacent properties, a portion of which was subsequently sold to one Jeyabalan, specifically excluding the borewell portion. As the said Jeyabalan attempted to lay claim over the borewell, the plaintiff sought to sink a new borewell in the suit properties and, in that connection, put up a thatched shed in Items II and III of the suit schedule properties.

b). The defendants have no manner of right, title or interest in the suit properties. Originally, one Sambantham Padayatchi, the father of the defendants, was cultivating the suit properties as a tenant under the plaintiff’s predecessors- in-title, namely Hamida Beevi. Even prior to the plaintiff’s purchase, the said Sambantham Padayatchi had sub-leased the suit properties to the plaintiff under two documents dated 01.02.1996 and 16.08.1999.

c). The said Sambantham Padayatchi died in the year 2000. However, taking advantage of the fact that his name continued to remain in the cultivating tenants register, the defendants 1 and 2 falsely claimed cultivating tenancy rights from the plaintiff, which was categorically denied. It is further stated that prior to the execution of the sale deeds, the plaintiff’s predecessors-in-title had entered into a sale agreement dated 30.07.2001 in favour of the plaintiff agreeing to sell the suit properties. On 31.12.2013, the defendants 1 and 2 once again attempted to assert cultivating tenancy rights and, upon refusal, made attempts to trespass into the suit properties and to dismantle the thatched shed put up by the plaintiff. Such unlawful attempts were resisted by the plaintiff. Hence, the plaintiff was constrained to institute the present suit seeking the relief of permanent injunction restraining the defendants from interfering with her peaceful possession and enjoyment of the suit properties.

5. The defence of the defendants, in brief, is as follows:

(a) The suit properties along with the other property in Survey No.262/2 originally belon