In case of omission to consider material evidence interference is called for.

1. The defendant in O.S.No.1083 of 1981 on the file of the District Munsif Court, Perambalur, who had been unsuccessful before the two courts below is the appellant. This appeal has been directed against the judgment and decree of the learned Subordinate Judge, Ariyalur made in A.S.No.112 of 1984 in confirming the judgment and decree of the District Munsif Court, Perambalur, dated 30.4.1983 made in O.S.No.1083 of 1981.

2. At the time of admission, the following substantial question of law was framed by this Court. “Whether the construction placed by the courts below on Exs.B-2 and B-3 is correcte”

3. Heard Mr.A.Subramaniya Iyer, for the appellant and Mr.S.Parthasarathy, for the respondent.

4. For convenience, the parties will be referred as arrayed before the trial court.

5. The plaintiff instituted the suit for declaration of title and for injunction. According to the plaintiff, the suit property and the adjacent land in all measuring 1 acre, 5 cents was the subject matter of purchase under Ex.A-2 dated 1.1.1966 by Angamuthu from Seetharamam Udayar. The said Angamuthu had in turn conveyed 35 cents under Ex.A-1, dated 11.8.1980. Based upon the said deed of purchase, the plaintiff had come forward seeking the relief of declaration of title and for consequential injunction alleging that the defendant is attempting to trespass.

6. The defendant pleaded that though the purchase under Ex.A-2 dated 1.1.1966 was effected by Angamuthu, it was for the benefit of Angamuthu and his brothers Kulandaivelu and Duraisamy, that Angamuthu had no separate right or interest ever the suit property itself, that the sale deed Ex.A-1 dated 11.8.1980 is not binding on the defendant nor it will confer any title on the plaintiff, that the sale deed dated 11.8.1980 has been created with false claims, that the plaintiff had been instigated by Seetharama Udayar to file the suit, that Angamuthu, Duraisami and Kulandaivelu who are the brothers living at Malaysia had purchased properties in Tamil Nadu and subsequently effected oral partition among themselves during the year 1972, followed by the deed of partition on 28.4.1972, that as per the partition, the suit property belonged to Kulandaivelu that after the death of the said Kulanthaivelu, the defendant had purchased the suit property from his wife and his son on 22.6.1978 for valid consideration under Ex.B-2 that since the date of purchase, the defendant is in possession of the suit property, besides paying kist, that the suit property is being enjoyed by the defendant alone with the adjacent properties owned by him, that the plaintiff is not in possession and that the plaintiff is not entitled to any relief prayed for.

7. Before the trial court, the plaintiff marked Exs.A-1 to A-47, while the defendant marked Exs.B-1 to B-11. A Commissioner was appointed, whose report and plan were marked as Exs.C-1 and C-2. The plaintiff had examined himself, besides one Sadasivam as P.W.2 while the defendant examined himself besides three other witness. The trial court decreed the suit. On appeal by the defendant, the first appellate court had confirmed the judgment and decree of the trial court. Being aggrieved, the present Second Appeal has been preferred.

8. Mr.A.Subramaniya Aiyar, the learned counsel for the appellant challenged the findings of the two courts below as contrary to the oral and documentary evidence adduced before the two courts below, besides being perverse, The counsel for the appellant further contended that the very documents produced by the plaintiff would show that Angamuthu was not entitled to the suit property, but it is Kulandaivelu, who is entitled to the suit property from where heirs, the defendant had purchased.

9. Per contra, Mr.S.Parthasarathy, the learned counsel for the respondent contended that no interference is called for in the Second Appeal as it is a concurrent findings of fact. The learned counsel for the respondent relied upon the decision of the Apex Court in Ramanu