12.The parties are vying with each other in respect of the property belonging to the Government and thereby, the plaintiff is claiming only the possessory right and not the absolute right over the suit property, as such and as above pointed out, when the plaintiff is able to sustain his claim of possession of only 6 1/4 cents in the suit property and with reference to the remaining extent, no proof evidencing his possession is forthcoming and on the other hand, from the documents marked on the side of the defendants and also considering the commissioner's report and plan, when it is found that the suit property being the Government Poramboke land, the remaining portion of the suit property situated adjacent to the Amman Temple, accordingly, from the documents projected by the defendants, it could be gathered that the local people used to gather in the suit property for celebrating the temple festival and other religious functions as put forth by the defendants and further more, when it is noted that there is a battai running to a width 4 or 5 ft in the suit property and accordingly, when the plaintiff would be able to access to his house portion through the said battai, the claim of the plaintiff that he is in the occupation and enjoyment of the entire suit property, as such, cannot be countenanced in any manner and the plaintiff having laid the suit only for the relief of permanent injunction, has the duty to establish his possession and enjoyment of the entire suit property as claimed by him. The plaintiff having failed to establish the same, the first appellate Court is found to have misdirected itself in improper appreciating of the materials placed on record on the part of the plaintiff as evidencing his claim of possession of the entire suit property. Even assuming for the sake of arguments that the defendants have failed to establish their case, the plaintiff being the suitor, when he has miserably failed to establish his possession and enjoyment of the entire suit property belonging to the Government, the first appellate Court is not justified or correct in granting the relief of permanent injunction for the entire suit property by erroneously setting aside the well considered reasonings and conclusions of the trial Court.
