9.By judgment dated 03.03.1999, the learned Principal District Munsif, examined the oral and documentary evidence on record. On the basis of the oral and documentary evidence, the learned Principal District Munsif found that the suit property was situated in R.S.No.362 Vadugapatti Village, Sivagiri, Erode District. It was originally a Natham Promboke land. PW2 was one of the vendors of the plaintiff. However, to prove title or atleast possession, revenue records have not been produced by the plaintiff. PW2 himself admitted that there were no entries in the revenue records to show his possession. Patta was not granted to him. Patta had been granted to others who had constructed houses in R.S.No.362. It was not granted either to him or to the other vendors or to the plaintiff. PW3, one of the attester of the sale deed in Ex.A1, stated that patta was granted to him. The learned Principal District Munsif found that since patta was not granted either to the vendors of the plaintiff or to the plaintiff, the claim of the plaintiff that the vendors were ancestral owners has to be rejected. It was also found that in the schedule to the plaint, in the description of the suit property it was not mentioned that thatched houses were there. In the absence of the convincing evidence, the learned Principal District Munsif rejected the contention of the plaintiff. The learned Principal District Munsif also considered the evidence of DW1 who was the third defendant, who produced Ex.B1 patta and Ex.B2 receipt of payment of house tax. It was stated that B1 relates to the suit property namely, R.S.No.362/25. It was also found that the defendants were in possession of portion of the suit property. Consequently, holding that the plaintiff was not in exclusive possession, the suit for injunction was dismissed.
