Proper proof of the contents and execution of documents, especially in the case of ancient documents, is necessary for their admissibility and to establish their genuineness.

The above Second Appeal arises against the judgment and decree in A.S.No.73 of 1994 on the file of Additional Sub Court, Tindivanam confirming the Judgment and Decree in O.S.No.140 of 1988 on the file of District Munsif Court, Tindivanam

2. The first defendant in the suit is the appellant in the above second appeal. The plaintiff is the first respondent and defendants 2 to 4 are the respondents 2 to 4 in the above second appeal.

3. The plaintiff filed the suit in O.S.No.140 of 1988 on the file of District Munsif Court, Tindivanam for declaration and injunction.

4. The brief case of the plaintiff in the suit is as follows:- (i) According to the plaintiff, the suit property measuring an extent of 80 cents in S.NO.278/8 originally belonged to Kuppa Gounder and Arumuga Gounder sons of Ayyadurai Gounder and they were enjoying the property in common and about 40 years ago, they partitioned the property. The said Kuppa Gounder did not have male issue. He had three daughters namely, Lakhmigantham, Saroja and Sarasu. The said Kuppa Gounder was allotted 44 cents in S.No.278/8 out of the total extent of 80 cents. The said Kuppa Gounder,sold an extent 0.30 cents, out of 44 cents, to his son-in-law, Venni Gounder (husband of Saroja) on 21.9.1968. On the same day, he also settled the remaining extent of 0.14 cents in S.No.278/8 to his daughter Saroja. Further, in the said two documents, the survey numbers were mentioned wrongly as 278/7. However, the boundaries were mentioned correctly in the said two documents. Venni Gounder and Saroja were enjoying the lands as per the boundaries mentioned in the two documents. Venni Gounder and Saroja are the defendants 2 and 3 in the suit. On 17.8.1970, defendants 2 and 3 sold their lands measuring an extent of 44 cents to the plaintiff. The plaintiff obtained patta in respect of the property purchased on 17.8.1970. The plaintiff purchased the property as a bonafide purchaser from the defendants 2 and 3 with the survey number mentioned wrongly as survey No.278/7. (ii) According to the plaintiff, subsequent to the sale of the land to the plaintiffs, the defendants 2 and 3 joined hands with the first defendant and tried to interfere with the possession and enjoyment of the plaintiffs property. The fourth defendant is the owner of Survey No.278/7. The first defendants father Arumuga Gounder died 20 years ago, Kuppa Gounder died 15 years ago and his wife died about 10 years ago. Since the defendants tried to interfere with the possession and enjoyment of the plaintiffs property, the plaintiff filed the suit.

5. The brief case of the first defendant is as follows: (i) According to the first defendant, though the land measuring an extent of 80 cents in Survey No.278/8 originally belonged to Ayyadurai Gounder, it was not enjoyed in common by Kuppa Gounder and Arumuga Gounder. The first defendant denied the partition between the said Kuppa Gounder and Arumuga Gounder 40 years ago. On 28.2.1931, Kuppa Gounder son of Ayyadurai Gounder and his wife Rajambal, sold an extent of 50 cents in the said 80 cents to one Ratnasabapathy Udayar and the remaining 0.30 cents belonged to Arumuga Gounder. After the sale of 50 cents on the northern side, Kuppsamy Gounder and Rajambal did not have any right over the said land in Survey NO.278/8. (ii) According to the first defendant, the predecessor Ratnasabapathy sold the land to another Kuppusamy son of Narayanasamy. The said Kuppusamys wife is the Ayyadurai Gounders daughter. Though the said Kuppusamy belongs to Vanniar Community, he used to write his name as Kuppusamy Naidu. The said Kuppusamy Naidu is the son-in-law of Ayyadurai Gounder. The said Kuppusamy Naidu is staying in Malaysia along with his son and grand-childen. Therefore, after the sale of 50 cents by Kuppusamy Goudner to Ratnasabapathy Udayar, the above referred Kuppusamy Naidu did not possess any land. (iii) According to the first defendant, the sale deed dated 21.9.1968 is not true and genuine. Therefore,