JUDGMENT :

N. Sathish Kumar, J.

1. Aggrieved over the reversal finding of the First Appellate Court decreeing the suit for declaration in respect of Exs.A3 to A6 and granting permanent injunction in respect of the entire suit property, the present appeal came to be filed. Cross objection is filed against the declaratory relief of the First Appellate Court in respect of Ex.A2.

2. For the sake of convenience, the parties are referred to herein, as per their rank before the Trial Court.

3. The brief facts, leading to the filing of this Appeal Suit, are as follows:-

The suit property originally belonged to Rama Pillai and Solai Pillai and their legal heirs. The plaintiff's father purchased a portion of the suit property under Ex.A2, 20.08.1933 and Ex.A3 dated 19.09.1934. Thereafter, the remaining areas were purchased by the plaintiff under Exs.A4 to A6. Ever since the date of purchase, the plaintiff's father and the plaintiff was in continuous possession of the property. The plaintiff has obtained electrical connection for the agriculture purpose. Patta was also changed in his name. When the matter stood thus, the defendants 1, 3 and 5, who have no right to create encumbrance over the property, had tried to create certain documents in the year 2000. Hence, the suit.

4. The first defendant filed a written statement and the same was adopted by defendants 2, 3, 5 and 6. Denying the allegation that the plaintiff's father had purchased the property under Ex.A2, it is the contention that the above document is not connected to the suit property. Sale deed, dated 19.09.1934 was registered in the name of the plaintiff's father and the plaintiff's father was not in possession of the property purchased under the said sale deed. Further, it is the contention that the suit property was not partitioned. The suit property was given to the plaintiff by the defendants on oral lease during the year 1971 on an annual lease for a sum of Rs. 500/- to each co-owners, since there was no amicable settlement among the co-owners of the suit property for dividing the property. The plaintiff has been in possession of the suit property at that time and obtained service connection for agricultural purpose. It is further contended that annually the lease was increased and now the plaintiff is paying a sum of Rs. 3,000/- to each co-owners. It is the further contention that the first defendant had executed a sale deed on 21.08.2000 in favour of defendants 2 and 3 in respect of his share. Similarly, the fifth defendant executed a sale agreement in favour of sixth defendant in respect of his share.

5. Based on the above pleadings, the trial Court has framed the following issues:-

1. Whether the suit property belong to the plaintiff?

2. Whether the plaintiff is in possession of suit schedule property as lease as stated by defendant?

3. Whether the plaintiff is in possession of the suit schedule property as lease as stated by the defendant?

4. Whether the suit is bad for non-joinder of necessary parties?

5. Whether the plaintiff is entitled to the relief of declaration and injunction?

6. To what relief, plaintiff is entitled?

6. Before the trial Court, on the side of the plaintiffs. P.W.1 to P.W.3 were examined and Exs.A1 to A40 were marked and on the side of the defendants D.W.1 and D.W.2 were examined and Exs.B1 was marked.

7. The trial Court, after analyzing the documents, dismissed the suit on the ground that the extent of land purchased under Exs.A3 to A6 has not been properly established and the revenue records alone are not sufficient to prove possession. Admitting the sale of the property in favour of the plaintiff and his father under Exs.A3 to A6, the First Appellate Court granted declaration in respect of Exs.A3 to A6. Further, taking note of the fact that the plaintiff is in possession of the suit property, the First Appellate Court granted permanent injunction, as against which the present second appeal is filed.

8. While admitting the second appeal, this Court has fr