JUDGMENT :

S.A.No.1022 of 2019 has been filed by the 4th defendant/Auction Purchaser in the suit challenging the common judgment and decree dated 11.04.2018 made in A.S.No.5 of 2017 on the file of the District Judge, Udhagamandalam, The Nilgiris.

2. The plaintiff in the suit has filed the Cross Appeal No.54 of 2020 in S.A.No.1022 of 2019 challenging the common judgment and decree dated 11.04.2018 made in A.S.No.5 of 2017 on the file of the District Judge, Udhagamandalam, The Nilgiris, in restricting the suit claim of the plaintiff to 2/3rd and in modifying the judgment and decree dated 09.11.2016 made in O.S.35 of 2010 on the file of the Sub-Judge, Udhagamandalam.

3. S.A.No.1055 of 2019 has been filed by the 4th defendant challenging the common judgment and decree dated 11.04.2018 made in the Cross Appeal No.5 of 2017 on the file of the District Judge, Udhagamandalam, The Nilgiris.

4. S.A.Nos.160 & 161 of 2021 has been filed by the 5th defendant in the suit challenging the common judgment and decree dated 11.04.2018 made in Cross Appeal No.5 of 2017 and in A.S.No.5 of 2017 on the file of the District Judge, Udhagamandalam, The Nilgiris.

5.There are four appeals and one cross appeal have been filed by either of the parties to the suit against the common judgment and decree passed in A.S.No.5 of 2017 and Cross Appeal No.5 of 2017 by the District Judge, Udhagamandalam. Therefore, this Court would like to take up S.A.No.1022 of 2018 and Cross Appeal No.54 of 2020 first and dispose of the same.

6.The appellant in S.A.No.1022 of 2019 and S.A.No.1055 of 2019 would be referred herein after as appellant or 4th defendant. The cross objector in Cross Appeal No.54 of 2020 would be referred herein after as plaintiff or cross objector.

7.The appellant in S.A.Nos. 160 & 161 of 2021, would be referred herein after as 5th defendant or the 5th respondent or the Bank. All other parties to these second appeals would be referred with the same status as referred in the suit before the Trial Court.

8.Before dealing with the main issue, it would be appropriate to narrate the fact of the case, briefly as follows:

8.1.Originally the suit schedule property was owned by one Lakkay Gowder. The said Lakkay Gowder died intestate. Long after the demise of C.Lakkay Gowder, in the year 1968, his legal heirs entered into an oral partition and they were in possession and enjoyment of their respective shares obtained through the said partition. Thereafter, the terms and conditions of the oral partition was drawn up in writing among the legal heirs by virtue of an Unregistered Family Arrangement dated 11.10.1999. By virtue of the said family arrangement, Thiru L.Srikantiah, one of the son of Lakkay Gowder was alloted with the suit schedule mentioned property as his share.

8.2.On 17.10.2002, the plaintiff entered into a sale agreement with L.Srikantiah and his two sons to purchase 1.05 acres of agricultural land out of the 1.16 ¼ acres. On 21.10.2002, L.Srikantiah along with his two son delivered the possession of the said land to the plaintiff. Subsequently, they have also executed a sale deed dated 17.02.2003, in favour of the plaintiff. Thereafter, L.Srikantiah along with his sons, defendants 1 and 2 sold 4 ¾ cent of land to the 3rd defendant and L.Srikantiah retained the balance 6.5 cents with himself.

8.3.After the purchase of the suit schedule property, the plaintiff has been cultivating the land continuously. The plaintiff used to cultivate, carrot, potato, beetroot etc.

8.4.When the matter stand thus, the 4th defendant in the suit who is an utter stranger to the property had come to Adasholai on 28.02.2010 claiming to have purchased the suit 2nd schedule property by virtue of the public auction sale conducted by the 6th defendant, Recovery Officer. According to the 4th defendant, the auction was conducted by the 6th defendant and through the said auction, the 2nd suit schedule property was purchased by the 4th defendant. Thus, he claimed the right over the property and