The main legal point established in the judgment is the court's interpretation of the validity of sale deeds, conspiracy allegations, and the burden of proof in property disputes.

C.V. Karthikeyan, J.

The plaintiffs in O.S. No.458 of 1996 are the appellants herein. The plaintiffs, Krishnan had filed the above said suit before the learned District Munsif, Thuraiyur, seeking declaration of title and injunction with respect to the suit schedule properties. By Judgment and Decree dated 24.06.2002, the suit was decreed in so far as the first and second plaintiffs were concerned and dismissed in so far as the third and fourth plaintiffs were concerned. The defendants had also filed a counter claim. That was also dismissed.

2. The defendants then filed A.S. No.89 of 2002 which came up for consideration before the II Additional Subordinate Court, Tiruchirapalli. By Judgment and Decree dated 08.11.2004, the appeal was partly allowed and the Judgment and Decree of the Trial Court was modified. The suit was dismissed with respect to other reliefs. Counter claim was also partly allowed.

3. Challenging the said Judgment and Decree, the plaintiffs have filed the present Second Appeal. Pending the appeal, the first appellant died. Since the second, third and fourth appellants, his legal representatives were already on record, the death of the first appellant was recorded by the Court.

4. The second appeal was admitted on the following substantial questions of law:

1. Whether in law the lower appellate Court is right in granting decree based on Ex.B.2 when there was no extent sold by each of the vendor was mentioned?

2. Whether in law the lower appellate Court is right in granting the relief of recovery of possession, which is barred by law of limitation?

3. Whether in law the Court below was right in granting relief in favour of the respondents after coming to a conclusion that there was no pathway?

5. O.S.No.458 of 1996 :

The first plaintiff Krishnan, his wife Pakkiam and his two sons Govindasamy and Periyasamy have filed the suit against his brother Nallendran and the wife of Nallendran. The suit was filed, seeking declaration of title and permanent injunction restraining the defendants from interfering with the peaceful possession of the plaintiffs. The suit property was Iyan Punja land in survey No.179/5A measuring 0.84 acres, survey No.179/5B measuring 0.85 acres and Survey No.179/8A measuring 1.63 acres in Kannannur revenue Village, Thuraiyur Taluk, Trichy District. The first and second plaintiffs had purchased the property. They claimed they do not know how to read and write. An agreement to use the pathway in common was prepared by the defendants and the first and second plaintiffs affixed their finger prints. They had grown tress in the said properties. They had also constructed cement tanks. They claimed that there was no common pathway in the plaint. But the plaintiffs stated that the defendants were interfering with their possession claiming that there was a pathway. It is under these circumstances, that the suit was filed.

6. The defendants had filed written statement along with counter claim. It had been stated that when the second plaintiff purchased the property in S.No.179/5A, at the same time, the first defendant had also purchased 3, cents. Similarly, in survey No.179/4, the defendants had purchased 6 + cents and in Survey No.179/8A the defendants had purchased 0.03 cents. It was stated in the lands purchased by the defendants, pathway with a breadth of 15 links was laid. It was stated that both the sides were using the said pathway. There was also an agreement on 28.11.1990. It was stated that apart from those lands, in survey No.179/5A, 11 cents and in survey No.179/8A, 0.05 cents were allotted for the pathway. It was stated that the plaintiffs had reduced the breadth to 3-feet from 9-feet and had put up a cement tank. They encroached into the pathway. It was stated that the pathway is to be used in common. The defendants had also filed counter claim, seeking such declaration and also for mandatory injunction to remove the obstruction and alternate prayer that the 'B' schedule property belongs to th