1. The second defendant in O.S.No.4339 of 1986 on the file of the learned XII Assistant Judge, City Civil Court, Chennai is the appellant. The first respondent herein is the plaintiff in the suit. The other defendants in the suit have not been arrayed as parties in the second appeal. The above suit was filed by the first respondent for declaration of title in the 'A' scheduled property and for recovery of possession of the 'B' scheduled property. There were as many as six defendants in the suit originally. During the pendency of the suit, the first defendant Mr.Manicka Sastrigal died in whose place, the 7th defendant was brought on record as his Legal Representative. During the pendency of the this second appeal, the second respondent (the 7th defendant) Mr.Meenakshi Sundaram died in whose place the respondents 3 to 6 have been brought on record as his Legal Representatives. The suit was ultimately dismissed by the Trial Court. As against the same, the plaintiff preferred an appeal in A.S.No.113 of 1995 before the V Additional Judge, City Civil Court, Chennai. In the said first appeal, the defendants 2 and 7 alone were arrayed as respondents and the other defendants were not arrayed as parties at all. The lower Appellate Court by decree and judgment dated 29.02.1996, allowed the appeal, set aside the decree and judgment of the Trial Court and decreed the suit as prayed for. As against the same, the second defendant has come up with this second appeal.

2. The case of the plaintiff as could be culled out from the plaint is as follows:

The suit property has been described as 'A' Schedule and 'B' Schedule. The 'B' Schedule property is a portion of 'A' Schedule property. According to the plaintiff the suit property was originally owned by one Mrs.Lakshmi Ammal. She purchased the same by means of a registered sale deed dated 22.12.1938. Mrs.Lakshmi Ammal died on 11.04.1956, leaving behind her daughter by name Mrs.Muthulakshmi Ammal and two sons by name Mr.Manicka Sastrigal and Mr.Ramasamy. Mrs.Muthulakshmi Ammal is the mother of the plaintiff. Mrs.Muthulakshmi Ammal died. Mr.Ramasamy predeceased Mrs.Muthulakshmi Ammal in the year 1969. Mr.Manicka Sasthrigal (since died) is the first defendant in the suit. According to the plaintiff, after the demise of Mrs.Lakshmi Ammal on 11.04.1956, the mother of the plaintiff Mrs.Muthulakshmi Ammal become the absolute owner of the suit property as per law of succession prevailing as on 11.04.1956. Mrs.Muthulakshmi Ammal died in the year 1959 leaving behind the plaintiff as his sole legal heir to succeed to her estate. Thus, the plaintiff has become the absolute owner of the 'A' scheduled property. While so, the first defendant has sold away a portion of the 'A' Schedule property measuring 448 sq.ft. with building at No.15, Namasivaya Mudali Street, Triplicane, Madras by means of a registered sale deed dated 28.02.1986 as though he had title for the said property to convey. The property thus sold away by the first defendant to the second defendant which forms part of 'A' schedule property has been described as 'B' schedule property in the plaint. On coming to know about the transaction, the plaintiff issued a legal notice on 11.04.1986 to the defendants asserting her title and disputing the sale made by the first defendant. But the second defendant has sent a reply denying the claim of the plaintiff. According to him, by virtue of the sale deed dated 28.02.1986, the second defendant has taken possession of the 'B' schedule property and he has become the absolute owner of the same. Since the defendants denied the title of the plaintiff and since the second defendant declined to vacate the 'B' schedule property, the present suit has been filed both for declaration of title in respect of the 'A' scheduled property and for recovery of possession in respect of the 'B' scheduled property.

3. The second defendant who is the appellant before this Court, in his written statement, contended that tho