Possessory title declared where possession admitted in prior proceedings and defendants' sale deed boundaries mismatch suit property.

JUDGMENT

The unsuccessful defendants 1 to 3 are the appellants. The 1^st respondent herein filed a suit seeking declaration of his possessory title over the suit property and also for permanent injunction restraining the defendants from interfering with his peaceful possession and enjoyment of the suit property. The suit was decreed by the Trial Court and the findings of the Trial Court were affirmed by the first appellate court. Aggreived by the concurrent findings, the defendants 1 to 3 have come before this court.

2. According to the first respondent/plaintiff, the suit property is a “Gramanatham poramboke”. The plaintiff and his predecessor-in-interest have been in possession and enjoyment of the suit property for the past 50 years. The plaintiff has been running a tiffin stall in the suit property. The first defendant, who has got political clout with evil intention to occupy the suit property, filed rent control eviction petition before the Rent Controller in RCOP.No.4 of 1995 and the same was dismissed. The appeal filed by the first defendant was also dismissed by the appellate authority. The defendants 1 to 3 attempted to commit trespass into the suit property with the help of rowdy elements and in these circumstances, the above said suit was filed by the plaintiffs.

3. The defendants 1 to 3 filed a written statement and denied various averments found in the plaint. It was stated by the defendants 1 to 3 that RCOP filed by the first defendant was dismissed for the reason that he failed to prove his ownership and tenancy and he was relegated to seek remedy before the civil court. In the meantime, some unknown persons attempted to interfere with the defendants’ possession and hence, the first defendant filed a suit in OS.No.127 of 2002 against Nagan @ Nagalingam and five others. The said suit was decreed in favour of first defendant. The appeal filed by 1^st defendant in RCA.No.1 of 1997 challenging the findings of the Rent Controller was dismissed for default. It is further stated by the defendants 1 to 3 that first defendant was the absolute owner of the suit property and he purchased the suit property by virtue of registered sale deed dated 14-02-1992. The vendor of the first defendant was in possession and enjoyment of the suit property for more than 100 years and they had good title to convey the same to the first defendant. It was also the case of the defendants 1 to 3 that the suit property is situated within four definite boundaries and in case of dispute between survey numbers and boundaries, the later will prevail over the former. The defendants 1 to 3 denied the averments contained in the plaint as if the plaintiffs were running tiffin shop in the suit property. On these pleadings, the defendants 1 to 3 sought for dismissal of the suit.

4. Before the trial court, the first plaintiff was examined as PW1 and two other witnesses were examined as PW2 and PW3. On behalf of the plaintiffs, five documents were marked as Ex.A1 to Ex.A5. The first defendant was examined as DW1 and one Moorthy was examined as DW2. On behalf of the defendants, 75 documents were marked as Ex.B1 to Ex.B75. The Advocate Commissioner's report and rough sketch have been marked as Ex.C1 and Ex.C2.

5. The trial court, on appreciation of oral and documentary evidence available on record, came to the conclusion that plaintiffs were entitled to decree as prayed for. Aggreived by the same, the defendants 1 to 3 preferred an appeal in A.S.No.8 of 2023. The first appellate court affirmed the findings of the trial court. Aggreived by