JUDGMENT :

1. This Appeal Suit is directed against the judgment and decree passed in O.S.No.10817 of 2010 dated 08.03.2019 on the file of the learned VI Additional Judge, City Civil Court, Chennai.

2. For the sake of convenience, the parties are referred to hereunder according to their litigative status before the Trial Court.

3. The suit was filed for declaration, recovery of possession and permanent injunction. The case of the plaintiff is that he is the owner of the suit property. According to the plaintiff, he purchased the suit property from Rosy George by the registered sale deed dated 04.11.1981 registered vide documents No.5079 of 1981. The said Rosy George purchased the said plot by the registered sale deed dated 22.09.1967 registered vide document No.3061 of 1967 from one Chinnasamy Naidu. Actually the said Chinnasamy Naidu was the owner of large extent of land admeasuring 2 acres 31 cents, comprised in Survey No.98/1 situated at Peravallur, Chennai – 11. He layout the said property and the suit property purchased by the plaintiff is one among the property in the said layout. After demise of the said Chinnasamy Naidu, his manager one Sundaramoorthy, who had taken over the entire lands in the layout and prepared another layout for the very same property and resold the plots which were already sold by the said Chinnasamy Naidu but left unoccupied by the respective purchasers of the properties in various dimensions giving numbers such A21A etc. In the original layout approved by the Tahsildar, there was no such numbering and the row of plots on Loganathan Street, where the schedule property is situated consisted of 60 by 40 plots beginning from plot Nos.A.11 to A.20 and beyond A.20 one plot was left free for developing road and subsequently the same was changed and sold out. In fact, the plot No.A.18 purchased by the first defendant failed to protect the same and half of her plot which was sold out by the neighbour in plot No.A.17 owned to one K.Subramanian and renumbered as A.17A under the new layout. Therefore, the first defendant tried to occupy one half of the suit property and tried to put up the thatched hut. Therefore, the plaintiff lodged a complaint and the first defendant was warned by the Police to stop from putting up any construction. The first defendant had vexatiously filed a suit for permanent injunction as against the plaintiff in O.S.No.5070 of 1992 on the file of the learned IV Assistant Judge, City Civil Court, Chennai and the plaintiff had also sought to implead him and the other illegal occupants in the said suit. In the said suit, an Advocate Commissioner was appointed and as per his report, the plot No.A.18 claimed to be in occupation by the first defendant bounded on West by plot No.18-A, instead of by plot No.A-17, as per the original layout. Hence, the suit was filed by his Power of Attorney of the plaintiff.,

4. On receipt of the summons, the defendants 1 and 2 failed to appear and as such, they were set ex-parte.

5. Resisting the plaint, the defendants 3 to 6 filed their written statement stating that third defendant purchased a plot No.A.18 from the first defendant by the registered sale deed dated 03.11.2008 and registered vide Document No.8419 of 2008 at the office of the Sub Registrar, Sembium. The vendor of the third defendant purchased the plot No.A.18 by the registered sale deed dated 28.10.1966 registered vide document No.4237 of 1966 from one Chinnasamy Naidu. In the said sale deed, the boundaries and the layout annexed does not have plot No.A.19A. The plaintiff purchased the plot No.A.19 from Rosy George by the sale deed dated 04.11.1981 from the said Chinnasamy Naidu. The western boundary of the plot No.A.19 has been shown as A.19-A. Therefore, the vendor of the third defendant as well as the plaintiff have no identity of the property. When the plaintiff admitted to encroach the plot No.A.18, the vendor of the third defendant filed the suit in O.S.No.5070 of 1992 and the same was decre