- (1.)THE respondents in SA.No.606/2001/the plaintiffs 4 to 12 and three others have filed the suit in OS.No.196/1996 for permanent injunction restraining the appellant in SA.NO.606/2001/the defendant from interfering with their peaceful possession and enjoyment of the suit property. THE appellant in SA.No.810/2001/the plaintiff has filed the suit in 240/96 for permanent injunction restraining the defendants therein from interfering with the peaceful possession and enjoyment of the suit property by the plaintiff.
(2.)THE case of the Plaintiffs as set out in the plaint in OS.NO.196/1996 is as follows:-
a. THE suit property originally was a Government Poramboke land. On 18.8.1924 the Tahsildar, Erode granted patta to one Sengoda Moopan, son of Chinna Moopan for the suit property. THE said Sengoda Moopan took possession of the suit property on the date of patta itself. He continued to enjoy the same till his demise in or about 1926 leaving behind a son by name Chinna Moopan, who was enjoying the suit property by paying kist as absolute owner till his death in 1962. THE plaintiffs are the sons of said Chinna Moopan. Ever since the date of death of Chinna Moopan, the plaintiffs are in possession and enjoyment of the suit property as absolute owners by paying kist to the Government. THE plaintiffs are along cultivating the suit property. b. While things are as such, the defendant suddenly attempted to trespass in the suit property about a month ago claiming that the patta for the suit property stands in his name. On verification of records, the plaintiffs came to know that the suit property stands in the name of one Nachimoopan, the father of the defendant, who died 13 years ago. THE said Nachimoopan had never been in possession of the suit property and he was a total stranger to the suit property. THE inclusion of the name of Nachimoopan in the chitta register during resurvey appears to be an inadvertent mistake. THE plaintiffs were not served with any notice as contemplated under the Tamil Nadu Survey and Boundaries Act nor they were heard before its finalization. THE plaintiffs have already moved the Tahsildar for rectification of the records and they were given to understand that the rectification will be done very soon. THE defendant again attempted to trespass into the suit property on 9.1.1991, which was prevented by the plaintiffs. THE defendant has no right in the suit property. In such circumstances, the suit has been filed.

In the Written Statement filed by the Defendant in OS.No.196/1996, it is averred as follows:-

a. Originally the suit property was a Government Poramboke. In 1971, the patta was assigned in the name of the father of defendant, namely, Nachimoopan. The original patta issued in the name of said Nachimoopan was produced in the connected suit in OS.No.1202/1991. Thereafter, Nachimooppan was in possession and enjoyment of the suit property till his death. About 17 years back, the said Nachimoopan died leaving behind his two sons, i.e. Ramasamy and the defendant as his legal heirs. After the death of his father, the defendant and his elder brother Ramasamy were in possession and enjoyment of the suit property. About 14 years back, the brother of the defendant also died leaving behind his only son Raju as his only legal heir. After the death of his brother, the defendant and his brother's son are in joint possession and enjoyment of the suit property. b. In the month of Chithrai 1991, the defendant and his brother's son had a oral partition with regard to their ancestral properties in which the suit property was allotted to the defendant's brother's son Raju. The suit property is still kept in the name of Nachimoopan in the revenue records. As per the oral partition, now the said Raju along with his mother are in possession and cultivating the suit property. While so, since the plaintiffs attempted to interfered with the possession of the suit property, the said Raju filed OS.No.1202/1991 for permanent injunction, wherein an order of status quo was obtained. The said Raju is a necessary party to be impleaded to the above suit. The suit is not maintainable for non-joinder of necessary party. Hence, the suit is liable to be dismissed.

The case of the Plaintiff as set out in the plaint in OS.NO.240/1996 is as follows:-

a. The suit property was a Government Poramboke land. In 1971, the plaintiff's grand father was assigned the suit property. About 13 years back, the grand father of the plaintiff died leaving his two sons, namely, Ramasamy (father of the plaintiff) and the 4th defendant herein as his legal heirs. The grand father of the plaintiff was possession and enjoyment of the suit property till his demise. Thereafter, the said two sons were in possession and enjoyment of the suit property. About 10 years back, the father of the plaintiff died leaving behind the plaintiff as his only legal heir. The plaintiff and the 4th defendant had an oral partition in which the suit property was allotted to the plaintiff. The plaintiff and the 4th defendant were paying the tax to the suit property. The suit property is still kept in the name of Nachimoopan in the revenue records. b. From 1971, the grand father of the plaintiff, after his demise his sons were in possession and enjoyment of the suit property without any interruption whatsoever. Since the father of the plaintiff died about 10 years back, the plaintiff and the 4th defendant were in possession and enjoyment jointly till last "chithirai" month. After the said oral partition between the plaintiff and the 4th defendant, the plaintiff is in possession and enjoyment of the suit property by cultivating the same. On the southern side of the suit property, there a stream in which seepage water is available. With the help of the seepage water, the plaintiff has started transplanting the paddy seedling in the suit property from 20.10.1991 onwards. Now, almost half of the land is transplanted. All of a sudden, the defendants 1 to 3 trespassed into the suit property on 23.10.1991 and proclaimed that the plaintiff should not cultivate the land. The defendants 1 to 3 do not have any right or title to the suit property. Hence, the the suit has been filed for permanent injunction restraining the defendants from interfering with the peaceful possession and enjoyment of the suit property by the plaintiff.

(3.)THE defendants 1 and 2 in OS.NO.240/1996 are the plaintiffs 1 and 2 in OS.No.196/1996. After the death of the said plaintiffs, their legal heirs were brought on record as the defendants 4 to 7 and 11 to 13. THE defendants 1 to 7 filed a written statement reiterating their contentions referred in the plaint in OS.No.196/1996 and prayed for dismissal of the suit.
Before the Trial Court, on the side of the Plaintiffs, Ex.A1 to A17 were marked and PW.1 to PW.4 were examined. On behalf of the Defendants, Ex.B1 to B27 were marked and DW.1 to DW.4 were examined. The report and the plan of the Advocate Commissioner were marked as Ex.C1 and C2.