(1.) THIS revision is directed against the fair and decretal order made by the learned District Munsif, Sirkali, dated 23. 6. 2003 in I. A. No. 279/2003 in O. S. No. 435/ 1995, allowing the petition filed under Or. 13, R. 3 and 6, rejecting Ex. A-9 - Chitta extract, which has already been admitted through DW-4.
(2.) FACTS necessitated for this revision could briefly be stated thus:-Suit O. S. No. 435/1995 relates to S. No. 125/2 - Punja 0. 09. 0 Hectare, equivalent to about 27 cents. Case of the Plaintiff is that the suit property is the ancestral property and the Plaintiff has inherited the same from his father Ragava Naidu. After the death of his father, the Plaintiff has been in possession and enjoyment of the suit property by raising punja crops, coconut and mango trees. The Plaintiff has been paying the kist receipts. The Defendants have no manner of right in the suit property. When the Plaintiff attempted to mend the fence, the Defendants have prevented him from carrying out any repairs in the suit property. Hence the Plaintiff has filed the suit for Permanent Injunction restraining the Defendants from in any manner causing interference to his possession and enjoyment.
(3.) DENYING the averments in the plaint, D-2 and D-10 have filed Written Statement contending that they are in possession and enjoyment of the suit property to an extent of 22 cents. According to the Defendants, they are in possession of S. No. 125/1 wherein they have put up brick klin, along with S. No. 125/1. The Defendants are in enjoyment of the suit property in S. No. 125/2. Even if the Plaintiff has got any right in the suit property, the same is lost by ouster. The Defendants have been in possession and enjoyment of the suit property for a continuous period of more than 28 years and have perfected title by way of adverse possession also. The UDR Patta alleged by the Plaintiff must have been obtained by fraudulent means and the same has no binding effect on the Defendants' enjoyment of the suit property.