The plaintiff's established title and possession through a registered sale deed and supporting documents prevailed over the defendants' failure to prove better title, leading to the plaintiff's entitlement to recovery of possession.

The plaintiff is the appellant. The plaintiff filed the suit in O.S.No.158 of 1988 seeking the relief of recovery of possession and mesne profits from defendants 1 to 3 and claiming damage at Rs.4,912/- from defendants 4 and 5. The suit was dismissed by the decree and judgment dated 2.11.2000. Challenging the dismissal of the suit, the plaintiff filed an appeal in A.S. No.127 of 2000. Confirming the dismissal of the suit, the appeal was also dismissed. In the appeal, application was filed in I.A.No.46 of 2000 under Order 41 Rule 27 C.P.C., seeking permission of the court to adduce additional evidence. This I.A. was also dismissed.

2. The plaintiff has filed the second appeal challenging the concurrent dismissal.

2.1. The second appeal has been admitted on the following substantial questions of law:-

"1. Whether the Courts below is justified in rejecting the plaintiff's title to the suit property despite upholding the validity of sale in her favour on the ground of non identification of the suit property?

2. Is not the onus, on the defendants 4 and 5, being the vendors of the suit property, to prove the identification of the property, and failure to do so, made them liable to compensate the loss caused to the plaintiff?"

3. Brief facts:- The suit property is situated in R.S.No.349 B/6 A.C.03.1/3 cents with a dilapidated hut, at Mayiladuthurai registration district, Thirumayiladi Vattam within the following boundaries. North of path way, south of Duraisamy Padayatchi's dry land, west of dry land of defendants 4 and 5 and east of Gurusamy Nadar's wet land.

4. The plaintiff's husband and mother-in-law constructed a hut in the suit property about 20 years back and they were living there. The tax assessment originally stood in the name of plaintiff's mother-in-law and later, after her death, the tax assessment was transferred in the name of plaintiff's husband.

4.1 The suit property originally belonged to defendants 4 and 5 and from them, the plaintiff purchased the same on 7.10.1982, for a valuable consideration. When the plaintiff visited the property along with her husband, she found that the first defendant had encroached upon the northern portion of the suit property and had put up a hut. The plaintiff wanted the first defendant to remove the hut and hand over the vacant possession. When the plaintiff issued notice to D1, D4 and D5, D1 alone sent a reply and D4 and D5 despite the receipt of notice, did not send any reply.

5. The contention of the first defendant was that the suit property belonged to Sri Mushnam Boovaramasamy Temple. The plaintiff wanted recovery of possession from defendants 1 to 3 and if not possible, the value of money equivalent to the sale consideration from defendants 4 and 5.

6. The suit was resisted by defendants 4 and 5 on the following contentions:

(1) The defendants 4 and 5 are not responsible for the illegal action of defendants 1 to 3 and as contended by the plaintiff as the encroachment was on 7.12.1987 (date of sale 3.9.1987) i.e., after the sale of property defendants 4 and 5 are not liable to answer the claim of the plaintiff.

(2) The defendants 4 and 5 had title and possession over the suit property. As they had conveyable title and as competent persons, they sold the property to the plaintiff. The plaintiff was in possession even prior to the sale as a tenant. Therefore, on the date of sale, possession and title has been transferred to the plaintiff.

7. The claim of the plaintiff is resisted by defendants 1 to 3 on the following contentions:

(1) Neither the plaintiff's vendor nor the plaintiff has got title and possession over the suit property. The title vest with Sri Mushnam Boovaramasamy Temple. (2) The defendants are in continuous possession and enjoyment of the property. (3) An extent of 20 cents of which the suit property is also a part of it, was in possession of the third defendant. In lieu of enjoyment, the third defendant used to supply vetti ver, maruvoo and kozhu