The legal significance of registered sale deeds, the limitations on possessory title claims, and the need to implead the government in property disputes were established in the judgment.

The plaintiff is the appellant herein. The suit was filed by the plaintiff seeking for a declaration of possessory title of the plaintiff and also for permanent injunction restraining the defendants 1 and 2 from interfering with the peaceful possession and enjoyment of the plaintiff.

2. The trial court accepted the case of the plaintiff and decreed the suit as prayed for. The First Appellate court reversed the finding of the trial court. As against which the plaintiff has preferred the present Second Appeal.

3. The respondents/defendants originally engaged a counsel. The counsel reported no instruction on 10.03.2008 itself. Thereafter there was no representation for the respondents/defendants inspite of the fact that their names were printed in the cause list. The submission made by the learned counsel appearing for the plaintiff/appellant was heard.

4. The plaintiff has contended in the plaint that the suit property bearing door no.94V, Murugan temple street, E.Mandagapattu village, Villupuram taluk is a lake poromboke. It was in the possession and enjoyment of Messrs. Kaliamoorthy and Krishnamoorthy. They having put up a superstructure were in possession and enjoyment of the same. There was an oral partition in their family and the property was equally divided between them. The said Kaliamoorthy sold away his half share in the suit house and the vacant site for a consideration of Rs.5,000/-on 20.03.1986 and his brother Krishnamoorthy sold his half share in the suit house and the vacant site for a consideration of Rs.5,300/-on 27.02.1989 to the plaintiff. It is contended that the plaintiff has been in possession and enjoyment of the said property after both of them vacated the premises. With the above pleadings the plaintiff has sought for declaration of possessory title and for permanent injunction.

5. The defendants resisted the claim of the plaintiff on the ground that Kaliamoorthy who put up a superstructure in the suit property sold the same to the second defendant on 13.02.1988. There after the first and second defendants have been in possession and enjoyment of the suit property. Setting up a rival possessory title to the suit property, the defendants sought for dismissal of the suit.

6. The trial court completely disbelieved the documents produced on the side of the respondents/defendants. Having relied upon the evidence of P.W.2 and P.W.3 who were allegedly in possession of the suit property prior to the transfer of possession and also the other documents produced on the side of the plaintiff chose to decree the suit as prayed for.

7. The First Appellate court upset the finding of the trial court relying upon the documentary evidence produced by the respondents/defendants. But the First Appellate Court had not entered into any discussion with respect to the evidence of P.W.2 and P.W.3 who were originally in possession of the suit property.

8. The following questions of law have been framed at the time of admission of the Second Appeal.

"1) Whether in law the lower appellate Court was right in overlooking the unimpeachable evidence of the plaintiffs vendors who have vouched for the sale in favour of the plaintiff especially since there is no dispute with regard to the vendors title to the property.

And

2) Whether in law the lower appellate Court is right in ignoring that the alleged sale in favour of the defendants is subsequent to the sale in favour of the plaintiff."

9. The learned counsel appearing for the appellant/plaintiff would submit that the First Appellate court without properly adverting to the oral and documentary evidence let in on the side of the appellant chose to upset the judgment of the trial court. The tenor of the documents produced by the defendants was completely misquoted by the First Appellate Judge. It is her further submission that the unimpeachable testimony of the evidence of P.W.2 and P.W.3, the prior possessors of the suit property was completely ignored by the First Appellate