M. Duraiswamy, J.

1. The defendants have filed the above Second Appeal. The respondent/plaintiff filed the suit in O.S. No. 230 of 2004 on the file of the Additional District Munsif Court, Padmanabapuram for declaration, permanent injunction and to fix the western boundary of the suit property. The trial Court decreed the suit in respect of the declaration and permanent injunction and dismissed the suit in respect of the fixation of the western boundary.

2. Aggrieved over the grant of decree for declaration and permanent injunction, the defendants preferred an appeal in A.S. No. 81 of 2006. As against the rejection of the prayer to fix the western boundary, the plaintiff preferred an appeal in A.S. No. 82 of 2006. The lower Appellate Court dismissed the appeal in A.S. No. 81 of 2006 and allowed the appeal in A.S. No. 82 of 2006. Since both the appeals arose from a single suit, the defendants have filed the above Second Appeal.

3. According to the plaintiff, the suit property measuring an extent of 80 cents in S. No. 1099A, originally belonged to Tharwad of Bhagavathi Amma. The said Tharwad was partitioned by a registered partition deed. The said Survey Number was divided into 8 plots from west to east. A plan was prepared and it was appended to the partition deed. As per the partition deed, Plot No. 5 having an area 10 cents was allotted to Lekshmi Pillai, daughter of Easwari Pillai, Bhagavathi Amma, daughter of Devaki Amma and her minor children. The said Lekshmi Pillai and others sold the plaint schedule property in favour of Bhagavathi Amma, D/o Janaki Pillai, the mother of the plaintiff by a registered sale deed dated 27.10.1954. The said Bhagavathi Amma gifted the suit property to her daughter under a registered gift deed dated 12.06.2002 and she is enjoying the suit property as an absolute owner. The first defendant is the owner in respect of the eastern portion of plot Nos. 1 and 2 and just on the west of the suit property. The defendants 1 and 2 have no title or possession over any portion of the suit property. The sub division made in respect of the suit property is erroneous. In these circumstances, the plaintiff filed the suit.

4. According to the defendants, the suit property does not have an extent of 80 cents and it has got only a lesser area. The plot No. 6 in the partition deed was not divided. The share of the first defendant and that of the plaintiff's mother in plots 1 and 2 were exchanged as per the Exchange deed dated 28.08.1951. The plot exchanged in favour of the first defendant touches plot No. 5 which was allotted to Lekshmi Pillai. They sold the plot to the mother of the plaintiff in 1954. The second defendant who got the right of the mother as per the gift deed was given plot No. 13C. The sub division was made in 1996. In these circumstances, the defendants prayed for dismissal of the suit.

5. Before the trial Court, on the side of the plaintiff, P.W.1 was examined and 9 documents viz., Exs.A.1 to A.9 were marked and on the side of the defendants, D.W.1 was examined and 9 documents viz., Exs.B.1 to B.9 were marked. After taking into consideration the oral and documentary evidences let in by the parties, the trial Court partly decreed the suit by decreeing the relief of declaration and injunction and rejecting the prayer (B). Aggrieved over the same, the plaintiff as well as the defendants preferred appeals and the lower Appellate Court dismissed the appeal preferred by the defendants and allowed the appeal preferred by the plaintiff. Aggrieved over the judgment and decree of the lower appellate Court, the defendants have filed the above Second Appeal.

6. Heard Mr. V.M. Balamohan Thambi, learned Counsel appearing for the appellants and Mr. M.P. Senthil, learned Counsel appearing for the respondent.

7. The appellants have raised the following Substantial Questions of Law in the Second Appeal:

"(a) Whether the judgment and decree of the Courts below is sustainable, when the respondent/plaintiff has no