Mere attestation of a document does not amount to relinquishment of rights over the property described in the document. Proper investigation and measurement of the property, along with consideration of all relevant evidence, are necessary before making a decision in a land dispute case.

1. This second appeal is focussed by the defendants in the suit as against the judgement and decree dated 13.9.2005 passed by the Sub Court, Ariyalur, in A.S.No.22 of 1999 reversing the judgement and decree dated 24.6.1999 passed by the District Munsif Court, Jeyankondam, in O.S.No.346 of 1996, which was one for declaration and for injunction.

2. The parties, for the sake of convenience, are referred to hereunder according to their litigative status and ranking before the trial Court.

3. Compendiously and concisely, the germane facts absolutely necessary for the disposal of this second appeal would run thus:

(i) The respondent herein, who happened to be the plaintiff, filed the suit for declaration and injunction in respect of an extent of 27 cents of land in S.No.470/9.

(ii) The first appellant herein/first defendant filed the written statement, which was adopted by the second defendant, resisting the suit.

(iii) Whereupon the trial Court framed the issues.

(iv) During trial, the plaintiff examined himself as P.W.1 along with P.Ws.2 to 4 and marked Exs.A1 to A3. The first defendant examined himself as D.W.1 along with D.Ws.2 to 6 and marked Exs.B1 to B14. Exs.X1 and X2 were marked as Court documents.

(v) Ultimately, the trial Court dismissed the suit.

(vi) Impugning and challenging the said judgement and decree of the trial Court, the respondent herein/plaintiff preferred the appeal; whereupon, the first appellate Court reversed the findings of the trial Court and decreed the suit in toto.

4. Being aggrieved by and dissatisfied with the said judgement and decree of the first appellate Court, the defendants preferred this second appeal on various grounds.

5. My learned predecessor framed the following substantial questions of law:

"a) When the husband of the alleged vendor of the respondent had attested in Ex.B2-sale deed in favour of the vendor of the appellants, whether it is open to the respondent to assert title in his vendor, in contravention of the provisions of Section 115 of the Evidence Act 1872?

b) Whether the learned Sub Judge is right in rejecting Exs.B1 to B14 material documents which would conclusively negative the case of the respondent?

c) When the appellants had established their right and title by producing registered sale deeds, patta, chitta and kist receipts, whether the learned Sub Judge is right in discarding the material documents?

d) Whether the learned Sub Judge is correct in reversing the judgment of the learned District Munsif, without even setting aside the findings rendered by the trial Court?

e) Whether the learned sub Judge is correct in law in ignoring the admissions made by P.Ws.1 to 4, during cross examination, especially when it is well settled in law that the admission of the opposite party is the best evidence?

f) Whether the plea of estoppel will operate against the appellants with regard to Ex.A2-Sale Deed, particularly when the vendor thereunder did not have valid title and the document itself is invalid in law?"

(extracted as such)

6. Indubitably and indisputably, the germane facts as found exemplified in the plaint would be to the effect that the plaintiff purchased an extent of 27 cents of land in S.No.470/9 as found described in the schedule of the plaint as per Ex.A2-the sale deed dated 22.7.1994 from Muthukannuammal.

7. It is precisely the contention of the plaintiff that the first defendant, who purchased 8 cents of land in S.No.470/9 from the vendor of the plaintiff, an area to the north of the land specified in Ex.A2, cannot veer round and take a plea quite antithetical to what he accepted earlier in his sale deed Ex.A1 dated 23.8.1982 that his vendor was the owner of the aforesaid entire extent.

8. The defendants would contend that the 8 cents of land in S.No.470/9, from out of the total extent of 70 cents was purchased by the first defendant erroneously from one Muthukannuammal, vide sale deed-Ex.A1 dated 23.8.1982, believing that she happened to be the