The central legal point established in the judgment is the affirmation of the plaintiff's right to recovery of possession based on evidence and documents presented.

1. This second appeal is directed against the against the judgment and decree of the learned Sub-Judge, Kulithurai, dated 20.02.2015 made in A.S.No.60/1999 reserving the judgment and decree of the learned I Additional District Munsif, Kulithurai, in O.S.No.46/1986 dated 11.09.1999.

2. The defendant in O.S.No.46/1986 on the file of the I Additional District Munsif, Kulithurai, is the appellant herein. The respondents 1 to 5 are the children of the sixth respondent who is the wife of the plaintiff K.Parameswaran Thambi. The plaintiff filed a suit for declaration and recovery of possession in respect of the plaint schedule property having an extent of 10 cents, out of 2.55 acres in Old S.No.6511 along with building S.No.4/78 of Puloor Panchayat.

3. The case of the plaintiff in brief is as follows:

The plaint schedule property originally belongs to the plaintiff in the year 1954, he has constructed a building in the property which was assessed to Killyoor Panchayat and the Door number was 21/112 as per assessment number 2587 and the said Killyoor panchayat was bifurcated into Paloor Panchyat and Killyoor Panchayat. The plaint schedule property falls under Paloor Panchayat and a new door number was assigned as 4/78. The property originally leased out to non-departmental post office from December 1967 to November 1978 for a monthly rent of Rs.45/-. Subsequently, the same was leased out to one Dhasan who vacated during July 1979. From the month of November 1979, as per the request of the defendant, the property was leased out to him for a monthly rent of Rs.50/-. The defendant paid the monthly rent upto June 1984 and consented to vacate the premises for renovation in 1984 itself but the defendant failed to vacate the premises. The plaintiff came to know that one Velayuthan Nair, who is in inmical terms with the plaintiff supported the defendant from not vacating the premises. Hence, a police complaint was lodged on 23.07.1984. The police compromised the matter and asked the defendant to pay the monthly rent. Thereafter several demands were made. The defendant sought for time for payment of rent. To the shock and surprise, in May 1985, the defendant refused to pay the rent and questioned the title of the plaintiff over the property. Plaintiff caused suit notice on 19.06.1985 and received a frivolous reply on 12.07.1985. In the reply, it was stated that the defendant purchased the property from the real owner, but neither his vendor's detail nor the details of the sale deed was disclosed in the reply notice. After due enquiry, the plaintiff came to know that a fraudulent sale deed was executed by the said Velayuthan Nair to the defendant. Hence, the plaintiff was constrained to file the suit for declaration of title and recovery of possession and future mense profits and other reliefs.

4. The brief facts of the case of the respondent in written statement is as follows:

The plaint schedule property and the building bearing Door No.4/178 situated therein never belonged to the plaintiff and so the allegations that he leased out the building to the Postal Department and then to one K.Dhasan are false. The plaintiff has no connection whatsoever with the suit property and the building. The building was not put up by the plaintiff. The defendant is the absolute owner in possession of the suit property and the building. The former door number of the building was not 21/112. The suit property and the building formerly belonged to Velayudhan Nair, son of Thanupillai, who purchased the same from its original owner in the year 1963. While Velayudhan Nair was in possession of the suit property and the building as absolute owner, he executed a sale deed in respect of the same in favour of the defendant on 24.07.1984 and the defendant got absolute title and possession over the suit property and the building. The defendant is residing in the building with his family as owner. Though the area of the suit property, as per record is 5 ¾ cents, as pe