JUDGMENT :

(Prayer: Second Appeal filed under Section 100 of the Code of Civil Procedure, against the judgment and decree made in A.S.No.38 of 2012 dated 07.10.2016 on the file of the Principal District Judge, Kancheepuram District at Chengalpat, reversing the judgment and decree in O.S.No.123 of 2010 dated 24.04.2012 by the Subordinate Judge, Tambaram.)

This matter is taken up for hearing through Video-Conferencing.

The defendant in OS No.587 of 2004 on the file of the Sub Court, Chengalpattu, renumbered as OS No.123 of 2010 on the file of the Sub Court, Tambaram, who was able to convince the Trial Court to dismiss the suit upon its reversal by the Appellate Court in AS No.38 of 2012, has come up with this Second Appeal.

2. The suit was laid by the plaintiffs/respondents 1 and 2 herein, seeking declaration of their title to the suit property and for permanent injunction. According to the plaintiffs, the suit ‘A’ Schedule property was purchased by them under a Sale Deed dated 22.10.1986 from the first defendant. It is specifically alleged that the property purchased was described by boundaries and was delivered as per the boundaries. The plaintiffs have upon their purchase had put up a fence and a gate on the south western extremity. During the year 1998, the plaintiffs came to know of an attempt made by the first defendant to sell a portion of the property on the southern side making use of the wrong measurements in the patta and the Sale Deed dated 22.10.1986. When they confronted the first defendant about the said proposal, the first defendant agreed not to sell any portion of the property that was already sold to the plaintiffs and executed a letter of undertaking stating that he has sold the property within the specific boundaries and he does not own any other land in the vicinity. The said letter was given on 06.01.1998. However, subsequently when the second defendant/appellant herein, attempted to interfere with the possession of the plaintiffs, they came to know that the first defendant had sold an extent of about 12 cents on the Southern most extremity of the ‘A’ Schedule property described as ‘B’ Schedule property in the suit to the second defendant under the Sale Deed dated 25.05.2001. Since the said Sale Deed had created a cloud on their title, the plaintiffs sought for declaration of their title to the suit ‘B’ Schedule property and for a consequential permanent injunction.

3. The suit was resisted by the first defendant contending that he had sold only an extent of 77 cents within specific boundaries under the Sale Deed dated 22.10.1986. Therefore, when the extent has been specifically mentioned in the Sale Deed, the plaintiffs cannot claim any land over and above the said 77 cents. It was the further contention of the first defendant that he owned an extent of 90 cents in Survey Nos.2/1 and 2/2A. Out of the said 90 cents, he sold only an extent of 77 cents to the plaintiffs and retained the remaining13 cents. Out of the remaining 13 cents he had sold an extent of 12 cents to the second defendant. The first defendant was, however, very evasive in his reply to the claim of the plaintiffs with reference to the letter dated 06.01.1998. It is stated that he is unable to recollect the alleged letter dated 06.01.1998. He would also contend that the words south by Access provided by the vendor would show that there was no road on the southern side of the property.

4. Though the second defendant filed a separate written statement he as the purchaser of the property from the first defendant had to fall in line with the defence taken by the first defendant. The second defendant would contend that there was no necessity for him to attempt to trespass into the property, since the possession was delivered to him upon the execution of the Sale Deed in his favour on 25.05.2001.

5. At trial, the first plaintiff was examined as P.W.1 and one Sundaramoorthi was examined as P.W.2. Exhibits A1 to A9 were marked. The first defendant was exa