JUDGMENT: These three second appeals have been preferred from the common judgment made by the learned Principal Subordinate Judge Tiruchi in A.S.Nos.20 of 1986, 105 of 1986 and 21 of 1986, dated 15.7.1989. Those three appeals were preferred from a common judgment made by the learned District Munsif, Manapparai made in O.S.Nos.652 of 1982, 665 of 1982 and 714 of 1982 respectively.

2. The appellant herein filed O.S.No.652 of 1982 seeking for the relief of declaration of his title to the suit property along with permanent injunction with the following averments. The suit property previously belonged to S.P.G. Mission, which sold the same and other property to one Rangasamy Naidu on 26.3.1941 for a valid consideration. The said properties were possessed and enjoyed by Rangaswamy Naidu. The suit property was sold to the mother of the plaintiff by name Gnanammal on 3.10.1957, from which date she was in possession and enjoyment of the suit property. Under a registered family partition deed dated 16.7.1961 the suit property was allotted to the plaintiff and from that time he was maintaining, possessing and enjoying the suit property. The suit property was used as front vassal at the northern side of the plaintiff’s house. He put cow shed there and tied his cows. He also planted vegetable yielding plants there. He was doing electric motor pumpset business in the name of RMS Corporation. From Ramalingam Pillai Street, one has to enter the plaintiff’s house through the suit property. His house has no other entrance. He was having right over the suit property by adverse possession also. The defendants had no right over the suit property. The second defendant sought for plaintiff’s permission to install a small bunk shop in the suit property, which was refused by him. D-2 purchased motor pumpset from the plaintiff, for which certain amount was due, and hence misunderstandings developed. D-2 with the help of D-1, D-3 to D-5 were trying to interfere with the possession of the suit property. The plaintiff intended to put up a compound wall around the suit property. He has also obtained planning permission from Manapparai Municipality for such construction on 21.4.1982. Inspite of the same, the defendants were interfering with the peaceful possession and enjoyment of the suit property by the plaintiff. Hence there arose a necessity to file a suit for the abovestated reliefs.

3. The defendants 2 and 3 admitted the case. The first defendant has filed a written statement, which was adopted by the fourth defendant, alleging that the suit property as described in the plaint was not correct, since the same contained the vacant land standing in favour of the defendant and his wife; that the plaintiff filed the suit fraudulently; that the vacant land measuring 20 1/2 feet east west and 63 feet south north situated within the suit property belonged to the defendant and his wife; that there was no common lane measuring 6 feet east west and 52 feet south north; that the said lane also belonged to the defendant; that the plaintiff had no right or interest over the suit property; that the allegation that the suit property and other properties were purchased by one Ramasamy Naidu from S.P.G. Mission through a registered deed dated 26.3.1841 was not correct; that S.P.G. Mission had no right to make such alienation; that either S.P.G. Mission or the said Rangasamy Naidu had never enjoyed the suit property; that the further allegation that the plaintiff’s mother purchased the suit property under a document dated 30.10.1957 was also not correct; that the plaintiff’s mother had never enjoyed the suit property and she had no right over the same; that the averment that under a partition that took place on 16.7.1967, the suit property came to the hands of the plaintiff was not correct; that the suit property was not used as the front vassal, as alleged by the plaintiff; that the plaintiff had not tied his cows; that he had not planted any plants and had not put up an

Click Here to Read the rest of this document