Revenue records do not confer title or prove possession against commissioner report and admissions showing physical division by road and fencing; injunction suit maintainable on possession without declaration.

JUDGMENT :

P. DHANABAL, J.

1. This second appeal has been preferred as against the judgment and decree dated 23.12.2014 passed by the learned Principal District Judge, Vellore, in A.S.No.23 of 2013.

2. The defendant is the appellant herein and the respondent herein has filed a suit in O.S.No.467 of 2009 for the relief of permanent injunction restraining the defendants from interfering with the plaintiff's peaceful possession and enjoyment of the suit property and for costs.

3. The trial Court partly decreed the suit and granted permanent injunction on the eastern side of the cement road as mentioned in the Commissioner's report. Aggrieved by the said decree and judgment the plaintiff has preferred an appeal in A.S.No.23/2013 and the first appellate Court allowed the appeal and decreed the entire suit with costs by modifying the decree and judgment passed by the trial Court.

4. Aggrieved by the said decree and judgment the defendant has preferred this second appeal.

5. The case of the plaintiff before the trial Court is that the suit property originally belonged to his father Syed Mahabooth through sale deed dated 16.12.1934 and the extent of suit property is 1.04 acres. From the date of purchase itself the father of the plaintiff had been in possession and enjoyment of the property and he also mortgaged the property with the bank. Adjacent to the said property a government poramboke land of 0.74 acres was also enjoyed by the father of the plaintiff from the date of purchase of the above said property. The said father of plaintiff Syed Mahabooth died in the year of 1942 leaving behind his son namely the Plaintiff to succeed his estate. After the demise of father of the plaintiff he has been in exclusive possession and enjoyment of the property as its absolute owner. The plaintiffs predecessor left some portion of property for performing religious functions of the minority people who are residing at Muslim Colony, Kizhavadugankuttai Village, The Government also issued patta, Chitta Adangal by recognizing the possession of the plaintiff and the plaintiff also paid tax to the Government and thereby the plaintiff is having absolute right and interest over the suit property. The defendant is stranger to the suit property and he does not have any manner of right or interest over the schedule mentioned property. Whileso the defendant attempted to trespass into the property trying to level the land by removing the religious marks in the property and the same was averted by the plaintiff, therefore the plaintiff filed the suit for permanent injunction.

6. The case of the defendant is that the defendant denied the averments levelled in the plaint and the description of the property mentioned in the suit is not correct and the suit property is vague without mentioning the four boundaries . The plaintiff's father Syed Mahabooth purchased the property with definite four boundaries in S.No.42 with an extent of 1.04 acres from one Chinnasamy Mandiri through sale deed dated 16.12.1934 and he was in possession and enjoyment of the said property. In respect of Government Ryatwari land for an extent of 0.74 acres the defendant's denied the possession and enjoyment of the plaintiff and the documents filed by him are not relating to the property. The property of the plaintiff in SF No.42 to an extent of 1.04 Acre was already sub divided ad SF