The main legal point established in the judgment is the determination of property entitlement based on title deeds and sale deeds, and the Court's reliance on these documents to pass a preliminary decree in favor of the plaintiff.

P. KALAIYARASAN, J.

This Appeal Suit is directed against the Judgment and Decree, dated 16.02.2016 made in O.S.No.301 of 2013 on the file of the Additional District Judge, Tiruppur granting preliminary decree as prayed for in the suit.

2. The case of the plaintiff as averred in the plaint is as follows :

(i) The total extent in S.F.No.47 of Thekkalur village is 10.82 acres and S.F.No.49 is 7.90 acres. Both SF Numbers were subdivided as S.F.No.47/1 and 47/2 and S.F.No.49/1 to 49/5. Originally one Muthusamy Gounder, Kaliappa Gounder and Palanisamy acquired the property by virtue of various sale deeds in 1956 and 1960. Their legal heirs conveyed their shares in the said properties to the plaintiff. The plaintiff entered into a Deed of Exchange on 14.05.2007 with R.Velusamy, A.Sivasami and R.Nataraj and got 0.66 cents in S.F.No.49/1, as he wanted peace and to enjoy the property in a single lot. Thus plaintiff has been in possession and enjoyment of northern portion of the property in S.F.No.47/1 and 49/1.

(ii) The first defendant intended to purchase the property exchanged to the plaintiff and he failed. In order to wreck vengeance, the first defendant filed a false suit for partition taking advantage of wrong extent mentioned in certain documents.

(iii) The plaintiff is in possession of northern portion of S.F.No.47/1 and 49/1 of Thekkalur village and the same should be allotted to him at the time of final decree for partition. Though the sale deed had no specific mention, the plaintiff's vendor possessed northern portion of land in S.F.No.47 and 49. Since the plaintiff is having landed properties adjoining to S.F.No.49/1 and the property measuring punjai 6.24 acre has to be allotted to him contiguously for convenient enjoyment of his properties in whole.

(iv) Since there was no partition between the plaintiff and the defendants, entire properties are deemed to be in joint possession. The sale deeds executed by the first defendant, dated 06.09.1999 with specific boundaries are not in accordance with earlier documents. The defendants 1 and 2 have taken advantage of handwriting mistake in the sale deed of the year 1963 and the subsequent documents tried to convey more extent than what they are actually entitled to. Therefore, the present suit has been filed.

3. The averments in the written statement filed by the first defendant are as follows :

(i) The plaintiff has not specifically stated the extents which belong to him in S.F.No.47/1 and 49/1 by virtue of the sale deed, dated 11.09.2006 and he claims title and possession in respect of 6.24 acres common in both S.F.No.47/1 and 49/1. The total extent mentioned by the plaintiff in S.F.No.47/1 and 49/1 is not correct.

(ii) Even as per exchange deed, dated 14.05.2007 common undivided 0.66 acres in S.F.No.49/1 and common 1.56 acres in S.F.No.47/1 have been mentioned. Therefore, the plaintiff could not have taken actual possession of any specific extent. The defendant is in possession and enjoyment of the extent of land in S.F.No.47/1 and 49/1 as claimed in O.S.No.79 of 2009 on the file of the District Munsif Court, Avinashi.

(iii) The defendant sold to D8 the extent of lands that were purchased from one Sennimalai Gounder and Ayyammal under the sale deed, dated 25.10.1967 with specific extent of 5.91 acres in S.F.No.47. Apart from the properties sold by the defendant under the sale deed, dated 06.09.1999, he became entitled to 0.66 acres with common 1/2 share in 1/3 share in common 1/4 share in the common well in S.F.No.49 and 0.90 acres with common 1/2 share in 2/3 share in the common 1/4 share in the well in S.F.No.47 by virtue of the sale deed, dated 20.03.1989. There is no cause of action for the suit. Therefore, the suit is to be dismissed.

4. The averments in the written statement filed by the 8th defendant are as follows :

(i) The defendants 1 and 2 were entitled to more than the extent they had sold to the 8th defendant and therefore, the sale to the 8th defendant is proper and v