(1.) The plaintiffs are the appellants.
(2.) The plaintiffs filed O.S.1192 of 1995 before the Additional District Munsif Court, Trichendur for declaration of title over the suit schedule property and for consequential injunction restraining the third defendant from disturbing the possession of the plaintiffs of the second schedule property. They further prayed for mandatory injunction for grant of manaivari patta for the entire first schedule property. The suit was dismissed by the trial Court. The plaintiffs filed A.S.No.32 of 2017 before the Sub Court, Trichendur. The learned appellate Judge on independent assessment of the oral and documentary evidence, dismissed the appeal. As against the concurrent findings, the plaintiffs have filed the above second appeal.
(3.) The plaintiffs had contended that the suit schedule properties were originally owned by one Ramasamy Asari who is a Court auction purchaser. The said legal heirs of the Ramasamy Asari have executed a sale deed under Exhibit A3 dtd. 24/9/1943 in favour of one Sornathammal. The legal heirs of the said Sornathammal have executed a registered sale deed under Exhibit A4 on 16/6/1961 in favour of one Chinnakannnu Asari. The Chinnakannu Asari had executed a registered sale deed in favour of the plaintiffs' father under Exhibit A1 on 29/4/1985. According to the plaintiffs, they are in possession of the entire first schedule property. The second schedule property is the eastern portion of the first schedule property. The plaintiffs had contended that the entire suit schedule properties and other properties were originally natham properties. The second defendant in the suit had issued a patta for the entire extent of the first schedule property originally. Thereafter, the said patta was cancelled and new patta was issued with a reduced extent. The reduced extent is shown as the second schedule property which is now alleged to be classified as a pathway. Hence, he prayed for declaration of title and consequential injunction over the suit schedule properties.