An appellate court must independently assess the evidence and provide analytical, cogent reasoning when reversing a trial court's judgment. A suit for permanent injunction is maintainable without a prayer for declaration of title if the defendant's claim pertains only to a different property/survey number.

JUDGMENT

1.The Second Appeal is directed against the judgment and decree made in A.S.No.84 of 2017 dated 12.03.2018 on the file of the Additional District Court (FTC), Palani, reversing the judgment and decree passed in O.S.No.580 of 2000 dated 15.10.2014 on the file of the District Munsif Court, Palani.

2. The appellants are the plaintiffs. They filed the suit in O.S.No. 580 of 2000 before the District Munsif Court, Palani, claiming permanent injunction restraining the defendants and their men from in any manner interfering with the plaintiffs' peaceful possession and enjoyment of the suit property including construction of buildings and maintenance of the same.

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

4. Originally, the suit was filed against the sole defendant Palanisamy. Subsequently, alleging that defendants 2 to 5, at the instigation of the sole defendant, had attempted to interfere with the plaintiffs' peaceful possession and enjoyment of the suit property, the plaintiffs sought their impleadment, which was allowed by the Court in I.A.No.1480 of 2003 by order dated 21.10.2004. Pending suit, the defendants 3 and 4 died and their legal representatives were impleaded as defendants 6 to 11.

5. The case of the plaintiffs, in brief, is as follows:

(a) The suit property comprises a building and vacant land measuring 24 cents, bearing Door No.55, in Block No.6, Town Survey Nos.842/1B1, 842/1B2, 842/1B3 and 842/2A, Aruljothi Street, Palani Town. The suit property originally belonged to one Ponnusamy and the heirs of Balaiahswamygal. The suit property was leased out to the first plaintiff's father Chinnupillai vide registered lease deed dated 21.10.1971. The plaintiffs constructed a building thereon and commenced a business under the name and style of Rajan Plastic Industries after getting necessary licenses therefor. Though the lease deed stood in the name of the first plaintiff's father, the first plaintiff has been in possession and enjoyment of the suit property since 1971 by paying the requisite rent.

(b) The second plaintiff, who is the wife of the first plaintiff purchased a portion of the suit property vide two sale deeds dated 28.05.1992 and 01.06.1992. The first plaintiff purchased the remaining portion of the suit property vide two sale deeds dated 03.05.1993 and 10.06.1993 from the then owners, Ponnusamy and Chandran alias Balaiahswamygal. After the purchases, the plaintiffs effected mutation in the revenue records and obtained patta in their favour. Their names were also entered in the municipal and survey records. The plaintiffs have been regularly paying necessary taxes and electricity charges in respect of Electricity service connection Nos.11 and 12. The plaintiffs had also availed loans from the State Bank of India, Palani Branch, and Co- operative Urban Bank for running their Plastic Industry in the suit property and subsequently discharged the said loans.

(c) On 03.12.1999, the first defendant came to the suit property and attempted to create disturbances and threatened the plaintiffs and their tenants. Hence, the first plaintiff lodged a co