The central legal point established in the judgment is the significance of proving possession and enjoyment of the property, as well as the admissibility and value of title documents in determining ownership.

JUDGMENT :

(Prayer: Second Appeal is filed under Section 100 of C.P.C, praying against the judgment and decree in A.S.No.92 of 2002 dated 26.04.2004 on the file of the Additional Subordinate Judge, Vridhachalam, thereby confirming the judgment and decree made in O.S.No.347 of 1996 dated 16.08.2001 on the file of the District Munsif-cum-Judicial Magistrate, Tittagudi.)

(The case has been heard through video conference)

The appellants are the legal heirs of the deceased defendants 1 & 5 in the original suit. The suit was filed for declaration of title, injunction and if the plaintiffs are disposes from the suit property pending suit, recovery of possession.

2. The case of the plaintiffs in short is that, the land in R.S.No.164/3 at Ganapathykrichi Village, Tittagudi Taluk, is a patta land, in which the suit property is to an extent of 1.68acres. Out of 1.68 acres, 68 cents is the ancestral property of the plaintiffs. On 30.10.1946 under Ex.A.1 the father of the plaintiff purchased 67 cents from one Valliammai. On 07.06.1955, he purchased 33 cents from one Nagammal and Mayilambal. Pending suit, the plaintiff Govindarasu died and his legal heirs were brought of record as plaintiffs 2 to 5. They perused the suit as legal heirs of deceased Govindarasu and on the registered Will alleged to have executed by Govindarasu on 26.02.1991. Suit laid alleging that the defendants are trying to interfere their peaceful possession by setting up a rival claim.

3. The defendants filed written statement, wherein, it is stated that the larger extent of property including the suit property originally owned by Veeramuthu Padayachi S/o.Subaraya Padayachi. The suit extent property was purchased by Doraisamy Padayachi S/o. Karuppa Padayachi. In the year 1927 from out of 1.68cents 67 cents on the western portion, the father of the plaintiff Duraisamy Padayachi S/o.Kulla Padayachi purchased under registered sale deed dated 23.02.1928. The 5th defendant is the wife of Duraisamy Padayachi S/o.Kulla Padayachi. Later, in the year 1939, Veeramuthu Padayachi re-purchased balance one acre from Duraisamy Padayachi S/o.Karupa Padayachi. In the year 1940, Veeramuthu Padayachi, sold 68 cents through oral sale to Duraisamy Padayachi S/o. Kulla Padayachi, who is the father of the 1st defendant and husband of 5th defendant. Before Veeramuthu Padayachi could execute a sale deed in respect of his portion of the property, he died. Later, from the son and wife of Veeramuthu Padayachi 33 cents of land was purchased by Duraisamy Padayachi S/o.Kulla Padayachi on 14.02.1955. Thus, by tracing title to the entire extent of 1.68 acres of the suit property through Ex.A.3 and Ex.A.4 and oral sale, the defendants laid a claim over the title of the suit property.

4. Further, it was contended by the defendants that after the death of Duraisamy Padayachi S/o.Kulla Padayachi, his son 1st defendant and wife 5th defendant had taken possession of the property and being enjoying continuously. The father of the plaintiff Thangavel Padayachi sought permission from the 1st defendant and 5th defendant to dig a bore well in the suit property since the bore in the land of 1st defendant's father failed to yield water. Being the young brother of his father, 1st defendant and his mother 5th defendant permitted the father of the 1st plaintiff to dig bore well on an understanding that they will share the expense in the ratio of 1:4. In the year 1959, there was dispute between the plaintiff's family and defendant's family. The records in possession of defendants were taken away by plaintiff's. Hence, criminal complaint was lodged and tried in C.C.No.352 of 1959. Hoping that the records will be returned back by the plaintiff, the 1st and 5th defendant were cultivating the suit property without any let or hindrance. When the 1st defendant left to foreign, 5 years ago, the 1st defendant left the property in possession of the plaintiff. When he returned back, dispute arose between the 1st defendant's family and