Claiming right over the Car track in S.No.32/3A, the defendants 1 to 3 have filed a suit in O.S.No.81 of 1993 against the first plaintiff for the relief of declaration and permanent injunction. The said suit was dismissed on 10.02.1998 and thereafter, no appeal was preferred by either side. In a Sale Deed dated 18.02.1993 by over site, the Survey Number in respect to 22 cents of land was mentioned as S.No.221/1 instead of S.No.221/7. In fact, the defendants 4 to 6 were not the owners of the lands in S.No.221/1. One Anaiammal, W/o.Arumugam and their family members were the absolute owners of the land in S.No.221/1. At the time of registering the documents, the above mistake was not detected by the first plaintiff. In the mean while, on 27.03.1998, the defendants 4 & 5 created a false sale deed in favour of the third defendant in respect to S.No.221/7. Since, the said S.No.221/7 was already sold in favour of the first plaintiff, the sale deed executed by the defendants 4 & 5 in favour of the third defendant dated 27.03.1998, was not a valid one. Hence, the sale deed dated 27.03.1998 has to be declared as null and void. So also the Survey number in the sale deed dated 18.02.1993 has to be rectified. On 17.04.1998, the defendants 1 to 5 and their men tried to trespass into the suit property, particularly, in S.No.221/7 and tried to take forcible possession of the same. The unlawful attempt made by the defendants 1 to 5 was prevented by the first plaintiff. Even though, the sixth defendant did not disturb the first plaintiff, she was added as a formal and necessary party to the proceedings. Hence, the plaintiffs have filed a suit for rectifying a mistake in survey number and boundary mentioned in the sale deed dated 18.02.1993, for declaration declaring that the sale deed dated 27.05.1998 is null and void and for permanent injunction restraining the defendants from in any manner interfering with the peaceful possession and enjoyment of the suit property by the defendants.
