JUDGMENT

The appellants are the defendants in O.S. No.101/2005, on the file of the District Munsif cum Judicial Magistrate Court, Arcot. The respondent/plaintiff filed the suit for permanent injunction restraining the appellants/defendants from interfering with his peaceful possession and enjoyment of the suit property.

2. The suit property as prescribed in the plaint is a dry land in Survey number 171/2H (old Survey No.171/2), Kilminnel Village, Walajah Taluk, Vellore District, along with 1½ shares out of 5 shares in the well, motor pump set and electricity service connection.

3. For the sake of convenience, the parties are referred to as per their ranking in the trial court and at appropriate places, their rank in the present appeal would also be indicated.

4. The minimum facts that are required for the disposal of the present second appeal are as follows.

The plaintiff owns 1.38 acres out of 4.39 acres in Survey No.171/2H (old Survey No.172/2), Kilminnel Village, Walajah Taluk, Vellore District. He claims tagged share of 1½ out of 5 in the irrigation facility from the well, motor pump set and electricity service connection. According to the plaintiff, he has been enjoying this right ever since the date of purchase of the suit property and that the defendants are attempting to interfere with his peaceful possession and enjoyment of the same.

5. The case of the defendants is that the suit property was originally owned by their father Chinnappa Gounder and the electric motor pump set was put up in the suit property by him during the year 1968. Subsequently, he sold some portions of his land to other persons, which eventually landed on the hands of the plaintiff. The defendants claimed that the plaintiff is entitled to only 1/18 share in the well and motor pump set. According to them, the suit was filed out of enmity and is also bad for non joinder of necessary parties as all the other co-owners have not been impleaded in the suit.

6. The learned District Munsif cum Judicial Magistrate, after framing necessary issues and after full contest, dismissed the suit vide his decree and judgment dated 29.07.2009 on the following grounds:

1) The sale deed dated 30.05.1960 (Ex.A1) executed in favour of Periakulandaiammal mentions only 1/5 share in the well. However, in the sale deed dated 17.11.1986 (Ex.A6) executed by Periakulandaiammal in favour of the plaintiff mentions about 1/5 share in the irrigation facility, motor pump set and electricity service connection.

2) Though 0.94 cents of land alone was conveyed through Ex.A1, it is not known as to how Periakulandaiammal conveyed 0.98 cents to the plaintiff through Ex.A6 sale deed.

3) The alleged written agreement dated 01.10.1968 (Ex.A11)

executed by the father of the defendants had not been proved by the plaintiff. In fact, this transaction was not mentioned in Ex.A6 sale deed.

4) The signature of Chinnappa Gounder (father of the defendants) on Ex.A11 was also proved to be forged when compared with his admitted signatures in the other documents.

5) Chockalingam, another vendor of the plaintiff had conveyed 0.40 cents of land along with 1/11 share in the well, electric motor pump set and electricity service connection.

6) A perusal of Ex.A2 to Ex.A5, the parent documents of Ex.A4, shows that Chockalingam, vendor of the plaintiff got 1/9 share out of 1/18 share in the well and motor pump set . While so, he cannot convey 1/11 share in the electric motor pump set and electricity service connection.

7) The plaintiff has not also claimed adverse possession over the suit property.

8) The plaintiff has not established his right by adducing acceptable evidence and should not pick holes in the defendants' case and on that score seek for a relief of injunction.

7. However, in the first appeal preferred by the plaintiff in A.S. No.49/2009, the learned Subordinate Judge, Ranipet, reversed the findings of the trial court and decreed the suit filed by the plaintiff vide his decree and judgment dated 21.02.2011 on t