The absence of notice regarding property subdivision invalidates its binding effect on aggrieved parties, and the presumption of boundary determination does not apply to title claims.

JUDGMENT :

The appellant in both the Second Appeals is the plaintiff before the Trial Court and respondents 1 to 4 in SA.No.1960 of 2004 are the defendants 1 to 4. In SA.No.1960 of 2004, the respondents 5 to 9 are the respondents 1 to 5 in S.A.No.1961 of 2004 and the defendants 1 to 5 before the Trial Court.

2. For the sake of convenience, the parties will be referred to according to their litigative status before the Trial Court in O.S.No.54 of 1994.

3. The brief facts which give rise to the instant second appeals is that, the plaintiff originally filed a suit on 11.12.1991 in O.S.No.200 of 1991 for the relief of declaration and for consequential permanent injunction in respect of 3 items of suit property. The above said suit was subsequently renumbered as O.S.No.54 of 1994. According to the plaintiff, the suit property is the absolute property of the plaintiff by virtue of the Sale Deeds dated 15.10.1981 and 17.12.1981. It is the further submission of the plaintiff that, ever since the date of purchase, they have been in actual, physical possession and enjoyment of the suit property. It is the further contention of the plaintiff that the Revenue Authorities have sub-divided the suit properties according to their possession as S.F.Nos.483/4B, and 4C and 483/9 and demarcated on ground. It is the further contention of the plaintiff that the defendants are the recent purchasers of some portion in S.F.No.483/4. But they claim right over the portion of the land in possession and enjoyment of the plaintiff. According to the plaintiff, the sub division had taken place during 1980 and for the last 10 years, the plaintiff has not raised any issue in respect of such sub division. Therefore, pleaded that, the defendants cannot object such sub division, which is mentioned in the plaintiff's Sale Deeds. It is the contention of the plaintiff that there cannot be any dispute about the identity of the property. Hence, the plaintiff has come forward with the suit for the relief of declaration and injunction in respect of the suit property.

4. The said suit was resisted by the 2nd defendant by contending that they have no knowledge about the alleged sub division and that such sub division is wrong and will not bind upon this defendant. This defendant further submits that under the guise of sub division, the plaintiff cannot get any title over the suit property. It is their case that, the plaintiff's predecessor-in-title viz., one Arumugam purchased the western portion of the property, from Dharmalinga Udayar by way of registered Sale Deed dated 13.03.1978. This defendant further submits that the plaintiff has purchased the property from one Arumugam, who has no title over the suit property and that he has sold what he has not purchased from his vendor. It is the further submission of the 2nd defendant that he has purchased land situate east of the land sold to Arumugam. This defendant submits that he has no objection to grant decree in respect of the item 3 viz., S.F.No.483/9. Hence, this defendant prayed to dismiss the suit.

5. During the pendency of the above suit, the plaintiff has filed another suit in O.S.No.244 of 2001 with similar pleadings with an additional prayer. Wherein, he sought for the direction against the official respondents, who are the defendants 1 to 4 in O.S.No.244 of 2001 for the relief of annulling or correcting the Revenue records as found in the order of the Ariyalur Revenue Divisional Officer dated 12.08.1993.

6. This suit (O.S.No.244 of 2001) was also resisted by the defendant by reiterating the pleading as found in the written statement in O.S.No.54 of 1994. Hence, this Court does not want to reproduce the gist of the written statement once again.

7. Before the Trial Court, the plaintiff marked as many as 27 documents as Exs.A1 to A27 and examined one witness as PW1. On behalf of the defendants, 2 witnesses were examined as DW1 & DW2 and marked 6 documents as Exs.B1 to B6.

8. The Trial Court, after having considered the or