plaintiff has been in possession and enjoyment of the suit property. This is also admitted by the first defendant in his evidence as D.W.1. Moreover, though D.W.1 in his evidence had deposed that his father and his paternal uncle Gopala Pillai sold 80 cents out of one acre in Survey No.44/8 and 14 cents by him and his brother through Ex.B4 & Ex.B5, admitted that in none of the sale deeds it is mentioned that how they became entitled to Survey No.44/8. He could not also produce any documentary evidence to show that after resurvey, Survey No.44/8 was renumbered as Survey No.61/8C. At this juncture, it is seen from Ex.A1 that the patta was given to the plaintiff with specific boundary description. Though the defendants contend that the plaintiff is a permissive occupier of the suit property, did not adduce evidence to substantiate the same. In fact, both the trial court and the first appellate court had gone into this aspect in extenso and had given a specific finding that the plaintiff is not a permissive occupier of the suit property as alleged by the defendants. The first defendant also admitted during the course of cross examination that he did not issue any notice to the plaintiff to vacate the suit property. It is also relevant to point out that the defendants also did not take steps to cancel the patta Ex.A1 issued in favour of the plaintiff. Moreover, the first defendant also admitted in his evidence that the plaintiff has been in possession of the suit property for more than 15 years. In the circumstances, both the courts below had rightly held that the plaintiff is entitled for a permanent injunction as prayed for by him.
