G. Rajasuria, J.

This second appeal is focused by the defendants 1 to 4, animadverting upon the judgment and decree 7. 1999 passed in A.S.No. 6 of 1999 by the Sub Judge, Hosur, reversing the judgment and decree dated 12. 1998 passed by the District Munsif, Hosur, in O.S.No.450 of 1996. For the sake of convenience, the parties, are referred to hereunder according to their letigative status before the trial Court.

2. A summation and summarization of the relevant facts, which are absolutely necessary and germane for the disposal of this second appeal, would run thus:

The respondent/plaintiff filed the suit O.S.No.450 of 1996 as against as many as 7 defendants, soaking declaration of title over the land bearing Survey No.9/10 measuring an extent of 14 acres (34 cents) and for obtaining delivery of possession of the same, as against which, the defendants 1, 2 and 4 filed the written statement and resisted the suit.

3. During enquiry, the trial Court framed the relevant issues. The plaintiff examined himself P.W.1 along with one R. Hema Raj no.P.W.2 and Exhibits A-1 to A-10 were marked. The first defendant examined himself as D.W.1 along with D.3 as D.W.2, one Sadhappa Naidu no.D.W.3, Mani as D.W.4 and Umavathy as D.W.5 and Exhibits B-1 to B-8 were marked.

4. Ultimately, the trial Court dismissed the suit, as against which the appeal A.S.No.6 of 1999 was filed. Whereupon the first appellate Court reversed the judgment and decree of the trial Court and decreed the original suit in toto.

5. Being disconcerted and aggrieved by the judgment and decree of the first appellate Court, the defendants 1 to 4 filed this second appeal on various grounds.

6. At the time of admitting the second appeal, my learned predecessor framed the following substantial questions of law:

“1. Whether the learned Subordinate Judge ought to have held that the boundaries and the extent are being the same under Exhibit B-1 and B-8, the defendants had acquired title to the suit property?

2. Whether the lower appellate Court failed to see that a mere fact of patta standing in the name of a person is not conclusive to hold that the person had title to the suit property?”

7. A bar poring over, and perusal of the typed set of papers and also considering the arguments of both sides would reveal and display that the plaintiff filed the suit for recovery of the land bearing Survey No.9/10 measuring an extent of 14 acres (34 cents) placing reliance mainly on Exhibit A-1 the Settlement patta, dated 24. 1958.

8. The learned counsel for the plaintiff would develop his argument by pointing out that the trial Court failed to consider that the suit property originally was stated to be situated in Survey No.9/3 and not paimash No.9/3, as paimash number was not in use at the time of issuance of the Settlement patta during the year 1958.

9. Whereas the learned counsel for the defendants would advance his argument to the effect that the plaintiffs father, namely, Venkatasamy, as per Exhibit A-10 dated 23. 1949, is claimed to have purchased an extent of 25 cents in Survey No.9/3; as per Exhibit B-1, the said plaintiffs father sold in favour of Sadhappa Naidu, son of Chinna Munivenkata Naidu, an extent of 34 cents in Survey No.9/3; Exhibit A-9 the encumbrance certificate, with reference to Survey No.9/10, so to say the suit property, as described in the plaint measuring an extent of 14 acres would reveal that, on 15. 1968 one Thimmiah sold it in favour of Venkataramiyah who in turn sold it as per the sale deed dated 21. 1972, in favour of Krishnaima Naidu, who in turn sold it as per the sale deed dated 10. 1978 in favour of Lingamma (D3). Accordingly, he would submit that the plaintiff’s father sold away the suit property in favour of the D3’s predecessor in title and D3, as per Exhibit B-8 acquired valid title over the suit property.

10. At this juncture, I would like to recollect and call up the trite proposition of law that the plaintiff has to stand or fall on th