JUDGMENT

R.M.T. Teekaa Raman, J.

1. Heard both sides and perused the records.

2. These two second appeals arise out of the common judgment and decree passed by the learned Principal Subordinate Judge, Salem, in A.S. Nos. 42 and 6 of 1996 respectively dated 21.03.1997, confirming the judgment and decree passed by the learned Principal District Munsif, Salem, in O.S. Nos. 1140 and 1011 of 1987 respectively, dated 12.01.1994.

3. For the sake of convenience, the parties are referred to as per their ranking before the trial Court in O.S. No. 1011 of 1987, since the said suit was filed prior in time and evidence and documents are marked in the said Original Suit.

4. The suit in O.S. No. 1011 of 1987 was filed for permanent injunction. The plaint proceeds on the basis that the suit properties belong to the plaintiff and his brother. Originally, the suit properties were purchased by the mother of the plaintiff namely, Pavayammal by Sale Deeds dated 06.07.1942 and 09.03.1925. The third defendant is the close relative of the plaintiff. The defendants 1 and 2 seems to have obtained a Sale Deed in their favour from the third defendant and are attempting to seize the suit properties. The third defendant has no right, title, interest or possession over the suit properties. The plaintiff is enjoying the suit properties absolutely. The Sale Deed shall not bind the plaintiff and his brothers.

5. The gist of the written statement filed by the defendants 1 and 2 in O.S. No. 1011 of 1987 are as follows:-

The first defendant and the second defendant along with his wife Maheswari have purchased the suit properties from the third defendant and the first defendant's wife Saroja and the second defendant purchased the properties from one Karumpillai @ Palaniammal for proper and valid consideration and they are in possession and enjoyment of the properties covered under the Sale Deeds. The suit properties described in the plaint schedule are all vague, misleading and incorrect.

6. It appears from the records that during the pendency of the appeal, additional written statement was filed whereby, it is stated that originally, the plaintiff is claiming the extent of 0.31 + 0.45 = 0.71 cents in the trial Court and at the appeal stage, he is claiming the extent of 0.70 + 0.45 = 1.15 cents by way of amendment. The plaintiff has no case and only to drag on the proceedings, he has resorted to file the amendment petition. The plaintiff is not entitled to either 0.71 cents nor 1.15 cents and he has not produced any supporting documents.

7. The suit in O.S. No. 1011 of 1987 filed by one Sadayan is for the relief of permanent injunction in respect of two items measuring 0.70 + 0.45 cents = 1.15 Acre cents situated in Jagirammapalayam Village called Gurunathan Punjai. Originally, the suit was filed seeking the relief in respect of two items measuring 31 + 45 cents and admittedly, the extent purchased by the plaintiff's predecessor-in-title Pavayammal under the Sale Deeds dated 06.07.42 and 09.07.1930 marked as Exs. A.2 and A.4 are more than what is stated in the original plaint and at the appellate stage, the plaintiff was permitted to amend the description of the properties in accordance with the description given in the Sale Deeds marked as Exs. A.2 and A.4 and after the amendment, the total extent in respect of which the relief claimed is 0.70 + 0.45 = 1.15 acres.

8. According to the plaintiff/Sadayan, the properties given in Item Nos. 1 and 2 of the suit property are purchased by his mother Pavayammal and since the date of purchase, his predecessor-in-title and after her, the plaintiff as one of her L.Rs. are in possession and enjoyment on the same and the defendants without any legal right, title or interest are trying to interfere with the possession and enjoyment of the suit properties.

9. The suit in O.S. No. 1140 of 1987, which was later in point of time, was filed by one Arumugham and Saroja against Sadayan and others for the relief of declaration and injunction. The