JUDGMENT :

(Prayer: Second Appeal is filed under Section 100 of C.P.C, against the judgment and decree passed in A.S.No.32 of 2017 dated 14.09.2018 on the file of the Sub Court, Trichendur confirming the judgment and decree passed in O.S.No.1192 of 1995 dated 23.03.2010 on the file of the Additional District Munsif Court, Trichendur.)

1. The plaintiffs are the appellants.

2. The plaintiffs filed O.S.1192 of 1995 before the Additional District Munsif Court, Trichendur for declaration of title over the suit schedule property and for consequential injunction restraining the third defendant from disturbing the possession of the plaintiffs of the second schedule property. They further prayed for mandatory injunction for grant of manaivari patta for the entire first schedule property. The suit was dismissed by the trial Court. The plaintiffs filed A.S.No.32 of 2017 before the Sub Court, Trichendur. The learned appellate Judge on independent assessment of the oral and documentary evidence, dismissed the appeal. As against the concurrent findings, the plaintiffs have filed the above second appeal.

3. The plaintiffs had contended that the suit schedule properties were originally owned by one Ramasamy Asari who is a Court auction purchaser. The said legal heirs of the Ramasamy Asari have executed a sale deed under Exhibit A3 dated 24.09.1943 in favour of one Sornathammal. The legal heirs of the said Sornathammal have executed a registered sale deed under Exhibit A4 on 16.06.1961 in favour of one Chinnakannnu Asari. The Chinnakannu Asari had executed a registered sale deed in favour of the plaintiffs' father under Exhibit A1 on 29.04.1985. According to the plaintiffs, they are in possession of the entire first schedule property. The second schedule property is the eastern portion of the first schedule property. The plaintiffs had contended that the entire suit schedule properties and other properties were originally natham properties. The second defendant in the suit had issued a patta for the entire extent of the first schedule property originally. Thereafter, the said patta was cancelled and new patta was issued with a reduced extent. The reduced extent is shown as the second schedule property which is now alleged to be classified as a pathway. Hence, he prayed for declaration of title and consequential injunction over the suit schedule properties.

4. The revenue authorities namely defendants 1 and 2 have filed a written statement admitting that the old Survey No.186/1 of Kulasekarapatinam is classified as a natham. According to the defendants, the Special Tahsildhar (Natham settlement) has conducted settlement proceedings and patta was granted to Survey No.582/24 in favour of the plaintiffs. Thereafter, by proceedings dated 18.08.1995, the extent of patta was reduced from 0.01.60 hectare to 0.01.44 hectare and the reduced portion was classified as a pathway and a new sub division was assigned as 582/27. Hence, the defendants contended that the plaintiffs cannot make a claim over the pathway. The third defendant has also filed a written statement disputing the claim of the plaintiffs.

5. The trial Court on consideration of the oral and documentary evidence arrived at a finding that the plaintiffs have not established their title over the second schedule property and hence, dismissed the suit.

6. The First Appellate Court considering the boundary recital in each of the documents arrived at a finding that Exhibit A3 document reflects the lesser extent of north-south measurement, but a larger north-south measurement has been sold in favour of the plaintiffs' vendor under Exhibit A4. The same higher measurement is carried out in Exhibit A1 sale deed also. Hence, the First Appellate Court arrived at a finding that the plaintiffs have not established how they are entitled to a larger extent than found in Exhibit A3, the parent document. The First Appellate Court also arrived at a finding that the plaintiffs have not proved how the larger extent giv