JUDGMENT :

(Prayer: Second Appeal is filed under Section 100 of the Civil Procedure Code, against the judgment and decree dated 16.08.2010 made in A.S.No.10 of 2010 on the file of the Sub Court, Panruti, reversing the judgment and decree dated 23.12.2009 made in O.S.No.519 of 1995 on the file of the District Munsif, Panruti.)

1. The present appeal is directed against the judgment and decree dated 16.08.2010 passed in A.S.No.10 of 2010 on the file of the Sub Court, Panruti, reversing the judgment and decree dated 23.12.2009 passed in O.S.No.519 of 1995 on the file of the District Munsif, Panruti.

2. The appellant / plaintiff has filed the suit before the learned District Munsif, Panruti, in O.S.No.519 of 1995, seeking the relief of declaration, declaring that the plaintiff, is the absolute owner of the suit property and for permanent injunction, restraining the defendant and her men, agents and servants from interfering with the peaceful possession and enjoyment of the 1st item of the suit properties by the plaintiff and for recovery of the 2nd item of the suit properties from the defendant and for costs.

3. By judgment and decree dated 23.12.2009, the learned District Munsif, Panruti, had allowed the suit, with entirety.

4. Aggrieved over the said findings, the respondent / defendant, preferred an appeal, in A.S.No.10 of 2010 on the file of the Sub Court, Panruti. By judgment and decree dated 16.08.2010, the learned Subordinate Judge, Panruti, had allowed the appeal and dismissed the suit filed by the plaintiff. Feeling aggrieved over the same, the plaintiff in the suit, preferred this Second Appeal.

5. For the sake of convenience, hereinafter, the parties, are referred to, as per their litigative status before the trial Court.

6. The averments found in the amended plaint in brief, are as follows:

(i) The suit properties originally belonged to one Venkatavarada Naidu of Thazhampattu Village. He sold the suit property to the plaintiff. The said sale was effected in favour of the plaintiff through his mother Savithiri Ammal, as a guardian, further, the same has been duly registered on 09.03.1981, attested and acted upon.

(ii) After the purchase, the guardian of the plaintiff Savithiri Ammal, was in possession and enjoyment of the suit properties. Afterwards, after attaining majority, the plaintiff was put in possession and the suit property was under his enjoyment. Due to the misunderstanding, the defendant attempted to interfere with the plaintiff’s possession. Hence, the plaintiff filed the suit, for the relief of declaration and also, for permanent injunction.

(iii) Afterwards, in the second week of October 1995, when at the time the plaintiff was admitted in the Hospital, the defendant forcibly entered into the “B” Schedule property and took possession. Hence, the plaintiff amended the plaint for the recovery of possession, in respect to the 2nd item of the suit property. The vendor of the defendant had no title to an extent of 20 cents, even after knowing the same, he executed the Sale Deed in favour of the defendant, through which, he sold 20 cents to the defendant. The vendor of the defendant cannot convey more than that, what he had possessed and entitled.

(iv) Only after the inspection and measurement by the learned Advocate Commissioner and Surveyor, the plaintiff found the correct measurement in respect of the 2nd item of the suit property, found the possession of the defendant. The defendant is not entitled to be in possession of the 2nd item of the suit properties. Hence, the suit.

7. The case of the defendant, is as follows:

(i) The entire extent of Survey No.142 is 1 acre and 46 cents. Out of the total extent, in the year 1937 vide a Sale Deed, an extent of 16 cents was purchased by the defendant’s father-in-law, namely, Govindasamy Padachi. Subsequently, the very same Govindasamy Padachi has purchased an extent of 30 cents from Venkata Varadhan, who is the son of Narayanasamy. The oral sale was reduced in writing as a Sale D