M. SURIAN Vs. PALANISAMY

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The instant civil revision petition has been filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India challenging the order dated 18.08.2014 passed by the learned Principal District Munsif, Salem in I.A. No. 563 of 2012 in O.S. No. 403 of 2012.

(2.) The petitioners are the plaintiffs in the suit O.S. No. 403 of 2012 pending on the file of the learned Principal District Munsif, Salem. The respondents are the defendants in the said suit. The suit O.S. No. 403 of 2012 was filed by the petitioners seeking for declaration, permanent injunction and for mandatory injunction. The mandatory injunction relief was sought for by the petitioners to remove the encroachment allegedly made by the respondents in the suit schedule property. Along with the suit O.S. No. 403 of 2012, I.A. No. 563 of 2012 was filed by the petitioners seeking for an appointment of an Advocate Commissioner to note down the physical features as well as the alleged encroachment in the suit schedule property.

(3.) As seen from the affidavit filed in support of I.A. No. 563 of 2012, according to the petitioners, the suit property originally belonged to their father Muthusamy by virtue of a registered sale deed dated 17.05.1965. According to them, from the date of purchase of the property, they are in possession and enjoyment of the suit schedule property measuring an extent of 0.76 cents. According to them, their father died leaving behind his wife Pachayammal, his sons who are the petitioners herein and two daughters viz., Thangam and Chinna ponnu as legal heirs to succeed his estate. It is the case of the petitioners that their mother and their sisters have relinquished their rights over the suit schedule property by way of oral release in favour of the petitioners. It has also been stated by the petitioners that due to poverty and in need of urgent family expenses, the petitioners have sold 0.65 1/2 half cents out of the total extent of 0.76 cents and the remaining property measures 0.10 1/2 cents which is the suit schedule property belongs to them absolutely. Further, the petitioners have stated that the respondents are the adjacent land owners and the second respondent is the land surveyor. According to them, the respondents with an intention to grab the suit schedule property has created a patta and revenue records and illegally encroached upon the suit schedule property. It is the categorical stand of the petitioners that the respondents have no title or interest over the suit schedule property.