The central legal point established in the judgment is the significance of genuine and reliable documents, continuous possession, and valid title in determining ownership and possession of property.

The second appeal has been filed by the defendants viz., Kuppusamy Naicker, Senthamarai Naicker and Delli alias Devaraj against the concurrent findings and judgments and decree passed against them in O.S.No.162 of 1986 by the District Munsif, Chingleput and A.S.No.58 of 1992 by the Additional Subordinate Judge, Chingleput.

2. The said suit was filed by the plaintiffs viz., Chandra, Baby and Venkatesan for the reliefs of declaration and permanent injunction against the defendants in respect of the suit property viz., 10 acres covered by S.No.165/3 in Kannivakkam Village in patta No.66 at Chingleput District. The claim, as per the allegations in the plaint made is to the effect that the plaintiffs' father Veerasamy Pillai purchased the suit property from one Viswanatha Devae through a registered sale deed dated 17.9.1958 for Rs.300/= for the purpose of avoiding revenue sale on 18.9.1958 due to arrears of kist to the tune of Rs.48/= and that eversince of the purchase, the plaintiffs' father was in possession and enjoyment of the suit property by paying kist and after his death, the plaintiffs' mother was paying kist and enjoying the suit property and after her death, the plaintiffs are possessing and enjoying the suit property by paying kist with patta changed in their name on 26.6.1980 as Patta No.66 and that the defendant, without any manner of right, attempted to trespass upon the suit property and that is why the plaintiffs happened to file the suit.

3. The suit was resisted by the defendants by raising contentions in the written statement to the effect that the suit property originally was meykal poramboke and it was assigned to Thiagi Viswanatha Devae and since the said Thiagi did not pay kist, the property was brought to revenue auction for recovery of revenue and that the first defendant purchased the suit property in revenue auction held on 22.8.1958 and paid the entire sale amount of Rs.85/= on the same day and took possession of the suit property and that eversince of the purchase, the first defendant alone was enjoying the same by paying kist, etc., and that the claim of the plaintiffs as if their father purchased the suit property from the said Viswanatha Devae is false and as such the sale deed should be a rank forgery and it is invalid and that the allegation as if the said Viswanatha Devae paid arrears of kist along with the sale commission is also false and that due to long standing enmity between the first defendant and the plaintiffs' father, the sale deed should have been created and forged and that the revenue auction sale was never set aside and thereby the said Viswanatha Devae could not execute the sale deed and that the transfer of patta as patta No.66 in favour of the plaintiffs in the year 1980 is without notice to the defendants and thereby in all, the plaintiffs had not been in possession and enjoyment of the suit property at any time and the defendants alone have prescribed title by adverse possession also and consequently, the suit is liable to be dismissed.

4. On trial, the District Munsif, Chingleput examined four witnesses viz., the third plaintiff Venkatesan as PW1, one Palaninatha Pillai as PW2, one Devae as PW3 and one Narayanan as PW4 and marked 30 documents as Exs.A1 to A30 on the side of the plaintiffs and examined three witnesses viz., the first defendant Kuppusamy Naicker as DW1, one Chinnakannan as DW2 and one Marimuthu as DW3 and marked eleven documents as Exs.B1 to B11 and after considering the oral and documentary evidence in detail and elaborately found and came to the conclusion that the alleged revenue auction sale was not acted upon and the same was not confirmed in favour of the first defendant and the defendants never took possession of the suit property and that on the other hand, the plaintiffs' father's purchase through a registered sale deed from Thiagi Viswanatha Devae is a true and valid one and thereby the plaintiffs alone have got title, possession and enjoym