JUDGMENT :

S. SOUNTHAR, J.

Prayer: Second Appeal is filed under Section 100 of the Code of Civil Procedure, to set aside the judgment and decree made in A.S. No. 83 of 1998 on the file of the Additional District Judge cum Chief Judicial Magistrate at Pudukkottai, dated 15.07.1998 confirming the judgment and decree made in O.S. No. 100 of 1989 on the file of the District Munsif Court, at Aranthangi, dated 12.08.1993.

1. The defendants 1 to 5 and 7 are the appellants. The first respondent/plaintiff filed a suit for declaration and injunction. The suit was decreed by the Trial Court and the first appeal filed by the appellants was also dismissed and hence, the second appeal.

2. According to the first respondent/plaintiff, the suit property is a natham land adjacent to his house. It was averred in the plaint that the suit property had been in possession and enjoyment of the first respondent's family for a quiet long time and in recognition of their possession, the Government granted patta in the name of the first respondent's brother, Sathan in the year 1976. It was also further averred that there was a oral partition in the family of first respondent eight years prior to the filing of the suit and whereunder the suit property was allotted to the share of the first respondent. Therefore, it was the case of the first respondent that he had been in possession and enjoyment of the suit property treating it as a backyard of his house right from the oral partition. It was further averred in the plaint that the appellants/defendants, who owned property on the southern side of the suit property, tried to put up a fence on the northern extremity of the suit property and tried to annex the suit property along with their property and hence, the first respondent was constrained to file a suit for declaration and injunction.

3. The appellants herein filed a written statement denying the claim of the first respondent that the suit property had been in possession and enjoyment of their family for a long time and in recognition of their possession, patta was granted in favour of the first respondent's brother. The appellants in the written statement claimed title and possession over the suit property. It was further averred by the appellants that 3½ cents in the suit property was purchased by the first appellant Palaniappan under Ex.B.1, dated 20.09.1960 and the remaining three cents was purchased by him under Ex.B.2 dated 25.01.1967. It was also averred by the appellants that in the sale deed executed in favour of one Sathaiah by Udaiyal Aarichi, dated 19.03.1983, while giving description of property covered under the sale deed, the suit property was shown to be the property of the first appellant.

4. On these pleadings, the parties went to the trial and before the Trial Court, the first respondent/plaintiff was examined as PW-1 and he marked four documents as Ex.A.1 to Ex.A.4. On behalf of the appellants, the first appellant was examined as DW-1 and one Sathaiah was examined as DW-2 and an independent witness Muthaiah was examined as DW-3. The appellants marked six documents in their favour as Ex.B.1 to Ex.B.6. The Advocate Commissioner's report and plan were marked as Ex.C.1 and Ex.C.2 and FMB plan for the suit survey number was marked as Ex.X.1.

5. On appreciation of oral and documentary evidences available on record, the trial Court came to the conclusion that the first respondent/plaintiff proved his title as well as possession over the suit property and granted a decree for declaration and injunction as prayed for. Aggrieved by the same, the appellants had filed the first appeal in A.S. No. 83 of 1998 on the file of the learned Additional District Court Judge cum Chief Judicial Magistrate, at Pudukottail and the same was dismissed. Challenging the same, the appellants are before this Court.

6. The learned counsel appearing for the appellants submitted that the first respondent/plaintiff, who had claimed title to the suit property by virtue of ora