JUDGMENT The Government, who was the first defendant in O.S. No. 49 of 1988 on the file of the Sub-Court, Poonamallee, in a suit for declaration of title and permanent injunction, has filed the present Appeal. 2. The case of the plaintiff Balakrishnan is that he is the owner of the suit schedule properties along with the second defendant. The suit 'B' Schedule is part of 'A' schedule property. It is stated by him that the second defendant C.P. Mary though is a joint owner of the property, could not join as plaintiff and, therefore, arrayed as the second defendant. However, the second defendant is supporting the case of the plaintiff. The suit property to an extent of 2 Acres of land, which is situate in S.No. 254/1A in Kattuppakkam Village, originally was owned by one Manali Ramakrishna Mudhaliar. In the year 1909, there was a partition between Manali Saravana Mudhaliar and his brother Manali Krishnasami Mudhaliar. The suit A schedule property was also one of the properties in the said partition which was divided between the said brothers equally. During the year 1936, the said Saravana Mudhaliar gifted his half share in the A Schedule in favour of Manali Srinivasa Mudhaliar, who is his nephew, ie., son of Manali Krishnasami Mudhaliar. Therefore, the said Srinivasa Mudhaliar inherited the half share in the A Schedule from his father and half share by way of gift from his paternal uncle and as such, he is in possession and enjoyment of the entire extent of land of 2 Acres in S. No. 254/1A and became absolute owner. Manali Srinivasa Mudhaliar died leaving behind his wife and 4 sons, viz., Manali Ramakrishnan, Parthasarathy, Veeraraghavan and Saravanan as his legal heirs. There was a partition among them on 24.3.1960 under which the suit 'A' Schedule property was allotted to the share of Manali Ramakrishna Mudhaliar. Ever since, he had been in possession and enjoyment of the same. On 24.12.1973, the said Manali Ramakrishna Mudhaliar for himself and as father and natural guardian of the minor M.R. Srinivasan, sold the plaint 'A' Schedule property to the plaintiff and the second defendant C.P.Mary. Thus, the plaintiff and the second defendant became the absolute owners of the suit property. On 24.12.1973, the said Manali Ramakrishna Mudhaliar for himself and as father and natural guardian of the minor M.R. Srinivasan, sold the plaint 'A' Schedule property to the plaintiff and the second defendant C.P.Mary. Thus, the plaintiff and the second defendant became the absolute owners of the suit property. It is further contended by the plaintiff that the plaintiff and the second defendant had laid down the lands and sold some of the plots as house sites to one P.K. Sarojini Ammal and some others. The purchaser P.K. Sarojini Ammal also has put up the construction and obtained electricity connection. The first defendant also had directed issue of patta to the said Sarojini. The other purchasers from the plaintiff and the second defendant are taking steps to construct buildings. The plaintiff and the second defendant also had retained an extent of 22 grounds and 1844 Sq.ft. which constitutes the 'B' Schedule of the suit property. While so, the defendant tried to trespass into the property and put up construction. If the defendant who has no manner of right, title to the plaint 'B' Schedule is allowed to raise permanent structures, the plaintiff will be put to irreparable loss and hardship. Hence, the suit. 3. The suit was resisted by the first defendant by denying the allegations set out in the plaint. It was the case of the defendant that the suit property is a Chathiram poramboke which vests with the Government and no other individual has got any independent right or title or interest over the suit property. Besides contending that the plaintiff's vendor was never in possession of the property and only the first defendant had been in possession of the property, the first defendant alleged further that the suit filed against the defendant by the plaintiff in O.S. No. 1335 of 1982 went against him and no appeal was filed by the plaintiff and as such, the same would operate as res judicata. 4. The second defendant who filed a separate written statement claimed that she was in joint possession of the 'B' Schedule property along with the plaintiff and that the suit may be decreed jointly declaring the plaintiff and the second defendant as owners for which the second defendant has got no objection. 5. 4. The second defendant who filed a separate written statement claimed that she was in joint possession of the 'B' Schedule property along with the plaintiff and that the suit may be decreed jointly declaring the plaintiff and the second defendant as owners for which the second defendant has got no objection. 5. In order to prove his case, before the trial Court, the plaintiff examined himself as P.W.1 besides examining one Swaminatha Pillai and Ramji Reddy as P.W.2 and P.W.3 respectively and marked Exs. A.1 to A.7. On the side of the defendants, one Samuel was examined as R.W. 1 and Exs. R.1 to R.8 were marked. 6. The trial Court / Sub-Court, Poonamallee, on consideration of the evidence adduced by the parties and the materials available thereon, by judgment dated 23.9.1993, decreed the suit O.S. No. 49 of 1988 declaring that the plaintiff and the second defendant are the absolute owners of the suit property and granted injunction against the first defendant. Aggrieved by the same, the first defendant Government represented by the Collector of Chengalpattu MGR District, preferred appeal before this Court in A.S. No. 57 of 1996. 7. This Court, on appreciation of the records and on consideration of the submissions of the learned counsel for the parties, by judgment dated 07.9.2006, finding that the suit property is a Chatharam poramboke not owned by any individual, and that no patta is being issued for Chatharam poramboke and also finding that it is in possession and enjoyment of the first defendant Government, allowed the Appeal with cost setting aside the judgment and decree of the trial Court. Besides, the learned Judge also observed that even according to the plaintiff, earlier suit filed by him for permanent injunction ended against him and subsequently, confirmed by the appellate Court also and so, it is proved that the plaintiff cannot seek a similar relief by filing fresh application seeking for permanent injunction and accordingly, held that the suit is not maintainable in law. Feeling aggrieved by the judgment of this Court, the plaintiff preferred Review Application No. 19 of 2007. 8. Feeling aggrieved by the judgment of this Court, the plaintiff preferred Review Application No. 19 of 2007. 8. It was the contention of the learned Senior Counsel appearing for the plaintiff / Review Applicant that it was the same suit which was originally filed as O.S.No.1335 of 1982 before the District Munsif, Poonamallee, and was subsequently returned to be represented before the Sub-Court after the amendment, which had enlarged the pecuniary jurisdiction. Therefore, according to the learned Senior Counsel, the question of res judicata does not arise. This Court after hearing the arguments advanced by the learned counsel for the parties, allowed the Review Application on 05.4.2011 thereby setting aside the judgment rendered by this Court on 07.9.2006 and posted the appeal for fresh hearing and disposal. Thus, the matter came to be posted before this Court for hearing in the second round. 9. Heard the learned counsel appearing for the parties and perused the records. 10. From the materials available on record, it is seen that aggrieved by the judgment and decree in O.S.No.49 of 1998 passed by the Sub-Court, Poonamallee, the first defendant / Government had preferred A.S.No.57 of 1996 before this Court and the same was allowed by this Court vide judgment dated 07.09.2006 dismissing the suit. It is also to be noted that while allowing the appeal, this Court had held that the suit was barred by res judicata. Therefore, the plaintiff had preferred Review Application No.19 of 2007 contending that the suit is not barred by res judicata and sought for review of the judgment on the ground that there is an error apparent on the face of the record. It is to be pointed out that at the time of filing Review Application, the Review Applicant / Plaintiff had also filed M.P. No. 1 of 2007 seeking interim injunction against the first respondent Government and M.P.No.1 of 2008 under Order XLI Rule 27 read with Section 151 CPC, to receive the settlement deed dated 27.02.1936 executed by Manali Saravana Mudhaliar in favour of Manali Srinivasa Mudhaliar and registered as Document No. 494/36, as additional evidence. This Court, after considering the submissions made by the counsels, on 05.04.2011, allowed the Review Application thereby setting aside the judgment and decree passed by this Court on 07.09.2006 in A.S. No. 57 of 1996 and posted the appeal for fresh hearing along with M.P.Nos.1 of 2007 and 1 of 2008. 11. Now, the question that arise for consideration in the appeal are:- 1. Whether the plaintiff and the second defendant have established their title to the suit property? 2. Whether the plaintiff is in possession of the suit property in 'B' schedule? and 3. To what reliefs the plaintiff and the second defendant are entitled? 12. The plaintiff, who has been examined as P.W.1 before the trial Court, has deposed that himself and the second defendant had purchased the property under Ex.A.3 dated 24.12.1973 from Manali Ramakrishna Mudhaliar. He has stated that his vendor also had handed over Ex.A.1 and Ex.A.2 at the time of registration of same. Ex.A.1 is the partition deed dated 31.8.1909 that took place between one Saravana Mudhaliar and Krishnasamy Mudhaliar and Ex.A.2 is partition deed dated 24.03.1960 between Raniammal and her sons. Ex.A.1 is the oldest document in which the suit 'A' schedule property was divided into two halves and one half was allotted to Manali Saravana Mudhaliar and the other half was allotted to Manali Krishnasamy Mudhaliar. The description of 'A' schedule property in Ex.A.1 is the property which is situate in S.No.243 in Kattupakkam Village within the specific boundaries, viz., north of Western High Road, west of Madha Temple, south of Natham and east of the housing colony of Baburaj Mudhaliar. In the above property, one half share was allotted to Saravana Mudhaliar and the other half share was allotted to Krishnasamy Mudhaliar. The said Manali Krishnasamy Mudhaliar had a son viz., Srinivasa Mudhaliar. As Saravana Mudhaliar did not have issues, on 27.02.1936, the said Saravana Mudhaliar gifted his half share allotted to him under Ex.A.1 in favour of his brother's son Srinivasa Mudhaliar. Thus, the said Srinivasa Mudhaliar became the owner of the entire 'A' schedule property, ie., half share having devolved on him by way of inheritance from his father Krishnasamy Mudhaliar and having obtained the other half share by way of gift from his paternal uncle Saravana Mudhaliar. 13. Thus, the said Srinivasa Mudhaliar became the owner of the entire 'A' schedule property, ie., half share having devolved on him by way of inheritance from his father Krishnasamy Mudhaliar and having obtained the other half share by way of gift from his paternal uncle Saravana Mudhaliar. 13. It is the further contention of the plaintiff that during the year 1960, after the death of Srinivasa Mudhaliar, there was a partition in the family among his wife Raniammal and his four sons Ramakrishna Mudhaliar, Parthasarathy Mudhaliar, Veeraraghavan and Saravanan and in the said partition, the suit 'A' schedule property was allotted to Manali Ramakrishna Mudhaliar. The said partition deed dated 24.3.1960 is marked as Ex.A.2. Thus, Ramakrishna Mudhaliar and his predecessors have been in possession and enjoyment of the property for more than 100 years. It is pertinent to point out that the appellant / first defendant though denied the statement that Ramakrishna Mudhaliar was the owner of the property, has not challenged the validity of Exs. A.1 and A.2. Since there was no serious objection with regard to the validity and genuineness of the above document, as per Section 92 of the Indian Evidence Act, the above documents can easily be presumed to be true and genuine and as such, it can be inferred that Ramakrishna Mudhaliar had valid title to the suit property. 14. The said Manali Ramakrishna Mudhaliar, who had got the absolute right over the suit 'A' schedule property on 24.12.1973 as per Ex.A.3, had executed a sale deed in favour of the plaintiff and the second defendant C.P.Mary. From the date of purchase, the plaintiff and the second defendant became the absolute owner of the suit schedule property. Having got the ownership under Ex.A.3, the plaintiff and the said C.P.Mary, who is the second defendant, had laid out the suit property into small housing plots and sold the same to third parties. The unsold portion of the lands were retained by the plaintiff and the second defendant. Subsequently, one Sarojiniammal, Gajendran and Sethu Madhavan, who purchased the suit 'A' Schedule property from the plaintiff and the second defendant, have been in possession of the same in their own right. The said Sarojini Ammal had constructed a house in the suit property and obtained service connection and has been paying the property tax under Ex.A.5. 15. Subsequently, one Sarojiniammal, Gajendran and Sethu Madhavan, who purchased the suit 'A' Schedule property from the plaintiff and the second defendant, have been in possession of the same in their own right. The said Sarojini Ammal had constructed a house in the suit property and obtained service connection and has been paying the property tax under Ex.A.5. 15. One Swaminatha Pillai has been examined as P.W.2 on the side of the plaintiff. The said witness, who was more than 82 years at the time of recording his evidence and who had personal knowledge about the vendor of the plaintiff Ramakrishna Mudhaliar, deposed that he was working as Accountant with the said Manali Ramakrishna Mudhaliar and he was maintaining the accounts for the lands available at Kattupakkam and other area, belonging to Ramakrishna Mudhaliar. He has further admitted that Ramakrishna Mudhaliar owned two acres of land in Kattupakkam and in the said land, there was a Chathram in the name and style of Rajammal Chathram. He further deposed that there was a care taker in the Chathram to supply water to the visitors of the Chathram and that the said care taker has been there even during the life time of Srinivasa Mudhaliar. According to P.W.2, since the said Chathram collapsed 20 years ago, Ramakrishna Mudhaliar bulldozed the same and levelled it. He has further stated that one Baburaj, who was the owner of the neighbouring land, had encroached upon the suit land and put up the construction of a room measuring 10 x 10, which was also bulldozed by Manali Ramakrishna Mudhaliar. Aggrieved by the action of Ramakrishna Mudhaliar, the said Baburaj filed a suit against him, which, later on, ended in a compromise. It is only thereafter, the said Ramakrishna Mudhaliar sold the suit lands to the plaintiff and second defendant in the year 1973. Thus, even P.W.2 has spoken about the title and right of Ramakrishna Mudhaliar to sell the suit property to the plaintiff. 16. It is contended by the appellant that the second defendant's whereabouts are not known and she being the joint owner along with the plaintiff had been arrayed as second defendant, raises suspicion. 17. Thus, even P.W.2 has spoken about the title and right of Ramakrishna Mudhaliar to sell the suit property to the plaintiff. 16. It is contended by the appellant that the second defendant's whereabouts are not known and she being the joint owner along with the plaintiff had been arrayed as second defendant, raises suspicion. 17. It is seen from the materials available that the plaintiff, in the plaint as well as his deposition as P.W.1, has categorically stated that despite his best efforts, he could not find out the whereabouts of the second defendant before filing of the suit and she, being the joint owner along with the plaintiff, has been arrayed as second defendant. Further, when the plaintiff has established that Ramakrishna Mudhaliar had sold the properties in the year 1973 in favour of both the plaintiff and the second defendant and he is not claiming the entire share for himself, there is no legal impediment for him to array the co-owner as a party to the proceeding. In such circumstance, there need not be any serious objection by the appellant / Government for having arrayed the co-owner as the second defendant. 18. The plaintiff had examined P.W.3, who is the witness in the sale deed dated 24.12.1973. As stated earlier, the evidence of P.W.2, Accountant of Ramakrishna Mudhaliar and the evidence of P.W.3, witness in Ex.A.3, would go to show that the land does not belong to the Government and it only belongs to Ramakrishna Mudhaliar. After execution of Ex.A.3 sale deed, the plaintiff and the second defendant have been in possession of the suit property. While so, the claim of the Government that the lands belong to the Government and that they had put up Mid-day Meal Centre in the suit property will not take away the right of the plaintiff. 19. The first defendant / Government had contended that the suit property belongs to the Government and in support of the same, it examined the Tahsildar of Sriperumpudur Taluk, who has deposed that the suit properties are classified as Chatharam Poramboke and only the Government has got right over the same and no one else can claim any right or title in the same. 20. 20. To support his stand, D.W.1 has filed the Survey Re-settlement Register for the period 1910 – 1911 relating to S. No. 254/1 and the same is marked as Ex.B.1 as per which, the suit property is classified as the Cantonment poramboke. However, the original 'A' register shows the suit lands as Chatharam poramboke. It is admitted that the classification Cantonment poramboke has been later on, changed into Chatharam poramboke. According to D.W.1, originally, it was the Cantonment poramboke, which was later on, converted into Chatharam poramboke and the total extent, according to D.W.1, is 2 Acres and 15290 sq. ft. of which 22,651 sq.ft. have been converted into pattai poramboke. Based on these entries in 'A' register, D.W.1 claims that the suit lands should be only Government lands. It is also admitted by D.W.1 that if the lands classified as Cantonment poramboke have to be converted into Chatharam poramboke, then there must have been Minutes of proceedings to that effect. Besides, it is to be noted that if the lands are Cantonment poramboke as contended by the appellant, then the control would be only with the Cantonment Board and not with the Government. In the absence of the Minutes of the proceedings for conversion of Cantonment poramboke into Chatharam poramboke, the mere deposition of D.W.1 will not be sufficient to establish the claim of the first defendant. 21. Considering the evidence of P.Ws. 1 to 3, who have stated that the lands only belong to Ramakrishna Mudhaliar, who had subsequently sold the same to the plaintiff and the second defendant and established the same with the original documents, it is to be confirmed that the plaintiff has got valid title over the suit property. 22. Though the plaintiff could not produce the settlement deed in favour of Manali Srinivasa Mudhaliar executed by Manali Saravana Mudhaliar dated 27.02.1936, the same has been filed along with the Review Petition, as has been referred to earlier, to be received as an additional evidence under Order XLI Rule 27 of C.P.C. As the document itself is of the year 1936 and there was no serious objection raised by the learned Special Government Pleader for accepting the same and the said document dated 27.02.1936 is marked as Ex.A.8. This was the only document which could link the two partitions – one of the year 1909 as per Ex.A.1 and the other of the year 1960 as per Ex.A.2. The plaintiff having produced the said document, has completed tracing his title of his vendors. From the foregoing discussion, it is candidly clear that the plaintiff and the second defendant have title to the suit property and the first defendant, who is the Government has not established its title by producing any valid document. 23. Though the learned Special Government Pleader had raised a ground in the memorandum of grounds of appeal that the suit is barred for non-issuance of notice under Section 80 of C.P.C. before filing of the suit, has not seriously agitated on the same. Therefore, this Court feels that it is not necessary to discuss the non-issuance of notice under Section 80 of C.P.C. and accordingly, the same is not discussed at this stage. 24. In view of the discussion supra, it is held that the plaintiff and the second defendant have established their title over the suit property and also the possession with them. The first defendant / Government is hereby restrained by an order of injunction from interfering with the peaceful and lawful possession of the plaintiff in the plaint 'B' schedule property which is a part of the plaint 'A' schedule property. In the result, this First Appeal is dismissed confirming the judgment and decree dated 23.09.1993 passed by learned Subordinate Judge, Poonamallee in O.S. No. 49 of 1988. Consequently, connected M.P. No. 1 of 2007 is closed. M.P. No. 1 of 2008 also stands closed in view of the observation made in paragraph 22 above accepting the document dated 27.02.1936 as Ex. A.8. However, in the circumstances of the case, there shall be no order as to costs.