JUDGEMENT

This second appeal is filed by the defendant in the suit as against the judgement and decree dated 09.02.2012 passed by the Subordinate Judge, Tiruvarur, in A.S.No.41 of 2011, reversing the judgement and decree, dated 03.08.2011, passed by the District Munsif Court, Tiruvarur, in O.S.No.101 of 2011, which was one for permanent injunction and recovery of possession.

2.The parties, for the sake of convenience, are referred to hereunder according to their litigative status and ranking before the trial Court.

3.The appellant herein is the defendant and the respondents are the plaintiffs in the suit. The plaintiffs approached the trial Court, by filing O.S.No.101 of 2011, for permanent injunction and recovery of possession. According to the plaintiffs, the father of plaintiffs 2 to 4 and husband of the first plaintiff one Chinnaiyan had purchased the suit property on 12.08.1989. After the death of Chinnaiyan, the suit property was in the joint possession and enjoyment of all the plaintiffs. According to them, the defendant tried to encroach upon the suit property, on 02.08.2009, by putting up thatched hut measuring about

360 sq.ft. on the North-West of the suit property.

4.On behalf of the appellant/defendant the suit was resisted on the ground that he had been residing in the thatched hut for a considerable time during his father's life time. According to the defendant, he was paying the tax for his house and the Tahsildar, Kudavasal, had issued 'Kudiyiruppu Certificate' to him. According to him, one of the plaintiffs had constructed a new house on the Eastern side of his house and in order to grab the property occupied by him, the suit had been filed. According to the defendant, he never encroached upon the property belonging to the plaintiffs.

5.The trial Court, which went into the issues and the evidence let in by the parties, had dismissed the suit holding that the plaintiffs were not entitled to any relief prayed for by them. The trial Court, while dismissing the suit, had in extenso referred to various materials placed on record, particularly Ex.A1, which was the Sale Deed, dated 12.08.1989, which conferred title on Chinnaiyan, the father of the plaintiffs 2 to 4 and the husband of the first plaintiff and found that there were factual errors in the description of Survey Numbers as mentioned in Ex.A1 and the Patta, which was marked as Ex.A2, dated 05.08.2009. The trial Court had also, while dismissing the suit, held that the contention of the defendant that there was no valid transfer of title to the plaintiffs was not to be sustained, since through Ex.A1 title had clearly passed on to the plaintiffs. However, the trial Court noticed material discrepancies in the description of Survey Numbers and therefore, held that the plaintiffs were not entitled to the reliefs. As against the dismissal of the suit, the plaintiffs filed appeal in A.S.No.41 of 2011, on the file of the Subordinate Judge, Tiruvarur.

6.The lower Appellate Court, which dealt with the appeal filed by the plaintiffs, had reversed the findings of the trial Court and decreed the appeal, vide its judgement and decree, dated 09.02.2012. According to the lower appellate Court, Ex.A1, viz., the Sale Deed, by which the said Chinnaiyan purchased the suit schedule property, was sufficient enough to prove the fact of the plaintiffs' entitlement for recovery of possession and the consequential injunction. According to the appellate Court, in Ex.A1 there was no mention about the adjacent hut put up by the defendant and therefore, the contentions and evidence let in on behalf of the defendant were to be negatived. While reversing the finding of the trial Court, the lower appellate Court also held that there was no whisper about the validity of Ex.A1 in the trial Court's judgement or in the written statement filed by the defendant. According to the appellate Court, without any pleading raised on behalf of the defendant, the trial Court was wrong in questioning the correc