SAMAYANA THEVAR Vs. ABDUL RAZACK

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE Second Appeal is filed by the third defendant against the judgment and decree dated 16.11.1998 in A.S.No.1 of 1998 on the file of the Subordinate Court, Sivagangai, confirming the judgment and decree dated 15.04.1996 in O.S.No.209 of 1993 on the file of the District Munsif Court, Manamadurai.

(2.) THE averments in the plaint are as follows: THE respondents/plaintiffs purchased the suit property from one Samayana THEvar/father of the defendants on 1.7.1967. From that date onwards they are in possession and enjoyment of the suit property. Since the property is not fit for cultivation, they are enjoying the fruits of Palm tree situated in the suit property. THE re-survey proceedings in patta No.500 has been granted in favour of the plaintiffs. At that time, he came to know that the boundaries are not correlated with Survey No.169/6. Hence, he approaches the revenue officials. THE correct survey No.169/11A has been given in favour of this third defendant who is none other than the son of vendor of the suit property. When he approached, the defendants wantonly avoiding to change the patta in favour of the plaintiffs. From the date of purchase, the respondents/plaintiffs are in possession and enjoyment of the property situated in Survey No.169/11A. But in the sale deed, it was mentioned as 169/6. THE defendants 1 and 2 Attestors of the sale deed executed in favour of the respondents/ plaintiffs. THE appellants/defendants are estopped from questioning the same. THE respondents/plaintiffs constrained to file the suit for declaration of title to the suit property and for consequential permanent injunction alternatively for the recovery of possession and prayed for decree.

(3.) AT the time of admission of the Second Appeal, the following substantial questions of law were framed for consideration: