CHANDRA BAI Vs. CHANNARAM

JUDGEMENT

(1.) HEARD the learned counsel for the appellants and the learned counsel for the respondents.

(2.) THESE appeals are disposed of together having regard to the circumstances of the case.

(3.) THE learned counsel for the appellants would straightaway point out the serious incongruity. In that, the learned counsel for the appellants would point out that the history of title to the suit property would indicate that the original vendor's title at Ex. D13 which is dated 24.1.1980, significantly the eastern boundary of the suit property is shown as land belonging to one Murugan. A subsequent transfer under Ex. D14 dated 26.6.1980 also indicates the eastern boundary of the suit property as land belonging to Murugan. So also, the transfer in favour of the appellants at Ex. D11 dated 7.3.1994 shows the eastern boundary of the suit property as land belonging to one Murugan. Whereas Ex. P1, the sale deed dated 26.3.1980, relied upon by the respondents shows the eastern boundary as a site. Curiously the appellants are said to have obtained a certified copy of the same, namely Ex. P1, and produced at Ex. D7, which indicates the eastern boundary as a road. The learned counsel would submit that the very documents produced by the respondents in support of their claim was not consistent and it certainly is not consistent with the property that is claimed by the appellants and therefore it was very much necessary for the three suits to be tried together in order to arrive at the true facts and circumstances.