SAVITHIRI Vs. RAJENDRAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This Second appeal is filed challenging the judgment and decree in A.S.No.17 of 2017 on the file of the learned Subordinate Judge, Kangayam, confirming the judgment and decree of the learned District Munsif, Kangayam in O.S.No148 of 2008.

(2.) The appellants/plaintiffs filed the suit for declaration of title and for permanent injunction restraining the respondents from interfering with the possession and enjoyment of the suit properties.

(3.) The case of the appellants is that the suit properties originally belong to one Kuppusamy counder. First appellant has purchased the suit property from Kuppusamy counder on 6/9/1967. Other appellants are children of first appellant Savithiri and her husband Palanisamy counder. The respondents are the adjacent owners on the eastern side of the suit properties. Kuppusamy counder sold 2.40 acres in survey No.473 and 4acres out of 9.91 acres in survey No.474 to Palanisamy counder. While selling properties, Kuppusamy counder had inadvertently omitted to mention survey Nos.472 and 471. It was sold along with survey Nos.473 and 474 in the sale deed. But total extent of 6.40 acres were sold in survey Nos.473, 474, 472 and 471. The present survey numbers are 471/4, 472/1, 473/2, 474/2 and 474/3. Appellants had been enjoying the suit properties for more than 40 years. They also paid kist to the Government. Agriculture was done using oil engine and ettram for drawing water from the well in the suit properties. In UDR survey, appellant's lands are given survey numbers as follows; 1.96 acres in survey No.472/1, 2.04 acres in survey No.473/2, 0.16 acres in survey No.471/4, 0.10 acres in survey No.474/2 and 1.68 acres in survey No.474/3. Total extent is 5.94 acres. Though the appellants are entitled to 6.40 acres as per the title deeds, they filed the suit only for an extent of 5.94 acres. Respondents try to interfere with the enjoyment of the suit properties by the appellant. When they tried to plot out their lands, they led to extend on the eastern itteri. They have no right to interfere with the appellant's possession and enjoyment of the suit properties. Therefore, this suit was filed for the aforesaid reliefs.