JUDGMENT :

N. Seshasayee, J.

1.1. The plaintiff, who has lost her suit for declaration of her title to the suit property successively both before the trial Court and the first Appellate Court, has come forward with this appeal. Parties would be referred to by their ranks before the trial Court.

1.2. The suit property is described as a plot measuring 4-3/8 feet next adjacent to the plaintiff's house. While plaintiff has sought declaration for the entire property, the dispute however is limited to a strip of property on the west, measuring 3-3" east-west x 24" east-west. The defendants are the owners of the western property. The crux of the issue is, of these two who battle for this piece of property, to whom does it belong? Claiming that it is her property, the plaintiff had laid the suit, not for this strip, but for the entire property of hers, of which this piece is alleged to be a part.

2.1. Plaintiff's case to the extent required may be briefly stated: The suit property is described as the eastern 4-3/8 feet in a plot north- south 19.37 x 26.5 feet with a total extent of 510 sq. ft., comprised in Natham Sy. No. 467/2A1/A.

Plaintiff would state that this property originally belonged to one Mohamed Ayisha Ammal. While so, this was sold to one Mohamed Mariammal under Ext. A.4 sale deed dated 22.07.1947. Thereafter, under Ext. A.5 sale deed, dated 29.10.1956, Mohammed Mariammal sold it to Syed Abthahir. After the demise of Syed Abuthahir, under a settlement deed dated 17.01.1977 (marked Ext. A.6), his heirs settled it in favour of one Rahlath Nisha. She, in turn, settled the property in favour of a certain Mohamed Ayisha Ummal under Ext. A.7 dated 20.11.1987. Within about 10 days thereafter, the donee/settle under Ext. A.7 executed another settlement deed under Ext. A.8 dated 30.11.1987 in favour of the plaintiff. The suit property as described in the plaint is the one that matches the description under Exts. A-7 and A-8.

In the entire suit property, along its eastern boundary the plaintiff has her house and the disputed strip of land lies beyond the western wall of the plaintiff's house. When the plaintiff faced certain obstruction to her title from the defendants, who attempted to encroach into the suit property, the suit was laid.

2.2. The defendants plead:

There is certain discrepancy in the derivation of plaintiff's title and in the boundary description of the suit property, but, they would still admit that the plaintiff's house is to the east of their property. Further, that the vacant site that lies beyond the western wall of the plaintiff's house forms part of their property.

The defendants thereafter would make a pointed allegation that their property which lies to the west of plaintiff's property measures 16- east-west x 24- north-south in Natham Sy. No. 467/2A1/A and according to them, this property was obtained by the defendants under a settlement deed dated 27.03.1978, marked Ext. B.2.

3.1. The dispute went to trial. It may be stated here, there was another suit in O.S. 290 of 2004, which the power of attorney of the plaintiff had instituted against the same set of defendants seeking bare injunction. Both the suits came to be tried jointly. The trial Court appointed an Advocate- Commissioner, who has filed his report which came to be marked as Ext. C-1 and C-2. These documents apart, the Commissioner had filed another set of report and a plan prepared by the surveyor, which are available on record but remain unmarked, and the trial court had made a reference to them in its judgment. This will be dealt with later in this judgment. The Power of Attorney of the plaintiff examined himself as P.W. 1, and produced the documents tracing the title of the plaintiff to which references have been made during facts-narration. For the defendants, one Karunai examined himself as D.W. 1.

3.2. It may have to be stated that while document