R.BANUMATHI, J. - (1.)This second appeal is preferred against concurrent findings of Courts below decreeing plaintiff's suit for permanent injunction. Unsuccessful defendants are the appellants. For convenience, parties are to referred to in their original rank in the suit.
(2.)Suit property relates to Survey No. 28/3C2 0.08.5H in Somalapurm Village, Vaniyambadi Taluk. Case of the plaintiff is that her father-in-law Thoppaiyan had purchased suit property under Exhibit A-1 sale deed dated 2.5.1950 and after the death of Thoppaian, her husband Chinnappan was in possession and enjoyment of the suit property. Plaintiffs husband Chinnappan died on 24/11/1998. After his death, Service Connection No. 136 installed in the suit property has been transferred in the name of the plaintiff and according to the plaintiff, she is in possession and enjoyment of the suit property and that she has been paying kist and electricity charges. Alleging that the defendants have attempted to trespass into the suit property on 25/10/2004, plaintiff filed the suit for permanent injunction.
(3.)Denying plaintiff's right and interest in the suit property, the defendants have filed written statement contending that the suit property belongs to defendants ancestrally. Defendants denied possession and enjoyment of the suit property by the plaintiff. First defendant claims that patta has been issued in his name and that he is in possession and enjoyment of the suit property. First defendant had also sold six cents in suit Survey No. 28/3C2 -0.08.5 hectares to the second defendant under Exhibit B-14 sale deed (27/8/1997). According to defendants, property sold by Ragavaiya Naidu to Thoppaiyan is entirely different from the suit property and the plaintiff has mistaken the said property for the suit property and therefore, the plaintiff is not entitled to the relief of permanent injunction.