The main legal point established is that attestation of a document does not imply knowledge of its contents and does not bind the attesting party. Additionally, the plaintiff's failure to prove exclusive possession or ouster of co-owners rendered the suit for declaration not maintainable.

1. The unsuccessful defendant is the appellant herein.

2. The respondent/plaintiff filed the suit for declaration and injunction or in the alternative for recovery of possession of the suit property.

3. The case of the respondent/plaintiff was that the suit property originally belonged to one Potti Ammal. The said Potti Ammal, married one Ponnan, who had two sons by name Kalliaperumal and Dhanapal. Dhanapal, died thirty years, earlier to the filing of the suit and the property was enjoyed by Kaliaperumal and Potti Ammal, as Ponnan died in the year 1950. The respondent/plaintiff purchased the property under a registered sale deed dated 04.08.1973, from Potti Ammal and Kaliaperumal and was in enjoyment of the same. As the appellant/defendant dispossessed the respondent/plaintiff, the suit was filed. The suit was originally filed for declaration and injunction or in the alternative, recovery of possession of the suit property.

4. The appellant/defendant contested the suit, stating that Ponnan, was the original owner of the suit property and through his wife Potti Ammal, he had one son by name Kaliaperumal and through his another wife, he had another son by name Dhanapal. The said Dhanapal, died leaving behind him his son by name Rajagopal and the appellant/defendant purchased the property from Rajagopal and prior to her purchase, the property was enjoyed by Rajagopal and his mother. After the death of Ponnan, Kaliaperumal and Potti Ammal, left the Village and they were not in possession of the property and the property was in possession and enjoyment of Rajagopal and therefore, the respondent/plaintiff cannot claim right over the suit property.

5. It is further submitted that the suit property is not situated in S.No.35/4 and it is situated in S.No.235/3B. Even assuming without admitting that the respondent/plaintiff has got right over the suit property, the appellant/defendant also has got equal right in the suit property, as she purchased the property from the other heir of Ponnan viz., Dhanapal's son Rajagopal, and therefore, the suit filed for declaration is not maintainable.

6. Both the Courts have held that the respondent/plaintiff purchased the suit property in the year 1973, from Kaliaperumal and Potti Ammal and the defendant's husband attested the sale deed dated 10.03.1983, wherein adjacent property was sold and in that sale deed, it has been stated that the eastern boundary is the property belonging to Kaliaperumal and the defendant's husband has accepted the title of the suit property in favour of Kaliaperumal and therefore, the appellant/defendant cannot claim any right over the suit property and the plaintiff has got title and the defendant has no title and decreed the suit for recovery of possession, declaring the plaintiff's right over the suit property and also directed the defendant to hand over possession of the suit property. Aggrieved by the same, this Second Appeal is filed.

7. The following Substantial Questions of Law were framed at the time of admission of this Appeal:-

1. Whether a plaintiff, who according to her own averments can be seen as one of the co-owners of the property, can be granted the relief of declaration of title and recovery of possession against a defendant, who is shown in law as an another co-owner/ sharer?

2. Whether the respondent/plaintiff, who claims possession and title over poramboke lands can succeed without adducing any proof regarding her sole and exclusive physical possession of the same or that of her sellor?

3. Whether a Court is justified and right in decreeing a suit for declaration of title in respect of a poramboke land, when no document or evidence to prove the title or possession of the plaintiff or her predecessor is produced?

4. Whether a third party witness attesting the execution of a document could be held bound by the contents thereof?

5. Whether just because a document of possession is subsequent to the filing of suit, the party producing the same can b