The main legal point established in the judgment is that the plaintiff's entitlement to the suit property was limited to the extent conveyed in the sale deed Ex.A3/B1, and subsequent documents of title did not support a claim to more than that extent.

1. This second appeal is directed against the Judgment and Decree dated 16.04.2002 passed in A.S.No.32 of 2002 on the file of the Additional District Judge, Fast Track Court No.1, Tindivanam, confirming the Judgment and Decree dated 26.09.1997 passed in O.S.No.944 of 1992 on the file of the Additional District Munsif Court, Tindivanam.

2. Parties are referred to as per their rankings in the trial Court.

3. Suit for declaration and permanent injunction.

4. The case of the plaintiff, in brief, is that the suit property belongs to the plaintiff. Chidambara Mudaliar, Nallathambi Mudaliar and Sundara Mudaliar are the sons of the deceased Natesa Mudaliar and the above said brothers and their father were members of a Hindu Joint Family and Chidambara Mudaliar was the family manager of the said family, after the demise of Natesa Mudaliar and on 21.08.1940, Chidambara Mudaliar has purchased an extent of 0.42 cents of land in the suit survey and undivided 1/3 share in 0.01 cents in the suit survey number and Well on it and the other properties from Eyla Gounder and others by way of a registered document and Eyla Gounder and his father and others were entitled to only 0.42 cents and 1/3 share in the Well and 0.01 cent in the suit survey number and the remaining share in the Well and 0.01 cent was the ancestral property of Natesa Mudaliar and his sons and thus, Natesa Mudaliar and his sons were entitled to 2/3 share in the Well in the suit survey number and subsequently, following the difference between the brothers, an oral partition took place and in the said partition, the suit property had been allotted to Nallathambi Mudaliar and Sundara Mudaliar, brothers of Chidambara Mudaliar. Nallathambi Mudaliar was allotted to 0.18 cents in the suit survey number and ½ share in 0.03 cents and the Well on it and Sundara Mudaliar was allotted to 0.22 cents in the suit survey number and ½ share in 0.03 cents and the Well on it and accordingly, the above said two brothers, each were entitled to the extent of land allotted to them and ½ share in 0.03 cents and the Well on it and on 15.12.1955, Sundara Mudaliar had executed a registered settlement deed in respect of the property allotted to him as above stated by way of partition in favour of minors Sambanda Mudaliar and Thirunavukarasu and the said settlement deed has been duly accepted and came into force and accordingly, the settlees enjoyed the said property through their mother and the plaintiff's brother Devaraja Mudaliar had purchased the above said settled properties by way of a sale deed dated 07.08.1961 and also purchased the properties allotted to Nallathambi Mudaliar by way of the above said partition in the suit property by way of a registered sale deed dated 07.08.1961 and thus, Devaraja Mudaliar became the owner of the entire suit property and the above said property was purchased by Devaraja Mudaliar for the benefit of the joint family and in the oral partition effected during 1963 between Devaraja Mudaliar and others including the plaintiff, the suit property and other properties were allotted to the share of the plaintiff and accordingly, the plaintiff has been in possession and enjoyment of the suit property by obtaining patta, paying kist etc., and in any event, the plaintiff has also acquired title to the suit property by way of adverse possession on account of continuous and uninterrupted enjoyment beyond the statutory period and the defendants have no right or interest or title in the suit property including the Well and the plaintiff came to know that patta has been also obtained by the defendants in their name in respect of the suit property wrongly and while effecting the patta in the name of the defendants, no notice has been sent to the plaintiff or Devaraja Mudaliar as the case may be and hence, the mutation of the revenue records as regards the suit property in the name of the defendants is not valid and binding upon the plaintiff and thereby, the defendants attem