(1.) THE defendants in the original suit are the appellants in the second appeal. The plaintiff in the original suit is the respondent in the second appeal. For the sake of convenience, the parties are referred to in accordance with their rankings in the suit.
(2.) THE plaintiff filed the suit, O.S. No. 613 of 1999 on the file of the learned Principal District Munsif, Namakkal for a bare injunction in respect of the suit property, which was a poramboke land assigned to him under a D -card by the State Government in recognition of his services in the Army. Contending that the defendants wanted the plaintiff to sell the suit property for a paltry sum which was not conceded by the plaintiff, he filed the above suit for permanent injunction against them not to cause disturbance to the peaceful possession and enjoyment of the plaintiff in respect of the suit property.
(3.) THE learned trial Judge, after framing necessary issues, conducted a trial in which the plaintiff alone figured as the sole witness (P.W.1) on his side and produced eight documents as Exhibits A -1 to A -8. On the side of the defendants, three witnesses were examined as D.Ws.1 to 3 and twelve documents were marked as Exhibits B -1 to B -12. The report and plan submitted by the Commissioner appointed by the trial Court were marked as Exhibits C -1 and C -2. At the conclusion of trial, the learned trial Judge, on an appreciation of evidence, rendered a finding that the plaintiff was able to substantiate his case that he was in possession and enjoyment of the suit property as on the date of plaint and that the defendants were trying to interfere with his possession and enjoyment. Further holding that the defendants were not having a better title than the plaintiff, the learned trial Judge decreed the suit as prayed for and granted the decree for perpetual injunction by its judgment and decree dated 13.11.2000.