JUDGMENT :

R.M.T. Teekaa Raman, J.

1. The plaintiff is the appellant herein.

2. The plaintiff filed suit for declaration of title in respect of 'A' schedule property (larger extent) and for permanent injunction against the defendants and also prayed for recovery of possession in respect of 'B' schedule property (smaller extent), which is forming part of the 'A' schedule property.

3. The suit property is situated in Viyajaragava Muthaliar Sathiram. The plaint proceeds on the basis that the plaintiff purchased the suit 'A' schedule property from one Sooriathammal and others, vide sale deed, Ex. A1, dated 15.09.1975, and also traced the title from Ex. A8, Ex. A7 and Ex. A6. Thereafter, Ex. A1 came into existence in favour of the plaintiff and also filed the revenue records.

4. The claim made by the plaintiff is resisted by the defendants on multiple grounds inter alia contending that the first defendant had purchased the property under Ex. B1 on 08.11.1984 and also he is tracing his title through Ex. B2 and Ex. B3 and relied upon Ex. B8 village map and Ex. B21 lay-out to show the sub division in this survey number.

5. Initially, the suit was decreed and the defendants had preferred an appeal. In the appeal, the Lower Appellate Judge at the first round has held that Advocate Commissioner has not revisited the property and accordingly, remanded the matter back to the trial Court to re-consider the position in respect of the suit 'B' schedule property.

6. After remand, the trial Court has taken up the case on file in the original suit number and the Advocate Commissioner was also re-inspected the property and filed Ex. C3 to Ex. C6 and on behalf of the defendants, additional witnesses were also examined. The trial Court, on consideration of both oral and documentary evidence, has held that there is a partition of survey number and though the plaintiff relies upon the boundaries namely, southern boundary in the name of Ponnammal, however in view of the existences of the subsequent documents, namely Ex. B8, the trial Court has held that the extent of the land is measured in Acre and Cents and not in Hectare as projected by the plaintiff and accordingly, rejected the plaint and dismissed the suit. Aggrieved against the said judgment and decree passed in O.S. No. 67 of 1992 dated 26.09.2003, the defeated plaintiff has preferred the appeal in A.S. No. 2 of 2004 and the same was also dismissed on 28.06.2004. Hence, the second appeal.

7. The above Second Appeal was admitted on the following substantial question of law:-

"Whether the judgment and decree of the Courts below are erroneous on account of its mis-construction of documents exhibited on the side of the appellant more particularly Exs. A.1 and Ex. A.6 to A.8?"

8. The learned counsel for the appellant would contend that the plaintiff title deeds are prior in point of time, way back of the year 1925 under Ex. A2. Thereafter, Ex. A7 of the year 1941 followed by Ex. A6 of the year 1944 and subsequently, in 1975 to the plaintiff under Ex. A1. He further contended that a combined reading of Ex. A6 to Ex. A8 and Ex. A1 would clearly demonstrate the title being vested with the plaintiff to an extent of 1.65 cents in Survey No. 182/1 with regard to the adangal 41 and also relied upon Ex. A2 to Ex. A5.

9. The bone of contention of the learned counsel for the appellant/plaintiff is that the plaintiff has successfully demonstrated the title to the sale deed tracing from 1925. Per contra, the defendants have miserably failed to establish the title and anterior point of time/document of title of the predecessor is only from 1974 Ex. B3. He drawing attention of Ex. B3 sale deed of the year 1974, Ex. B2 sale deed of the year 1983 and Ex. B1 sale deed of the year 1984 coupled with Ex. B2, would contend that all is not well in respect of Ex. B21 document, which was relied upon by the Courts below and would contend that both the Courts below have concurrently committed the mistake in overlooking the title deeds