The admissibility of certified copies of documents from public records can substantiate claims of ownership, overriding challenges based on the absence of original documents.

JUDGMENT :

K.GOVINDARAJAN THILAKAVADI, J.

The present Second Appeal is preferred against the judgment and decree in A.S. No.30 of 2017 on the file of Principle Sub Court, Krishnagiri dated 16.10.2019 modifying the Judgment and decree dated 17.03.2017 passed in O.S. No.169 of 2012, on the file of the District Munsif Court, Krishnagiri.

2. The 1^st defendant is the appellant herein. The plaintiffs have preferred the above suit in O.S.No.169 of 2012 for declaration of title and for permanent injunction.

3. The case of the plaintiffs is that the suit property is comprised in S.No.71 and in S.No.269/1 measuring 1.12.5 hectre belonged to the father of the plaintiffs namely Eswarappa Gounder who acquired the same from an ancestral oral partition effected 60 years ago prior to the suit. After his demise, the plaintiffs succeeded the suit property and they have been in possession and enjoyment of the same by paying kists to the Government. On 21.12.1938, one Kuppanna Gounder had purchased 3 ½ /5 shares in S.No.269/1 measuring 1.96 acres and sold the same to Eswarappa Gounder and others. In pursuant to the family arrangement, the said Eswarappa Gounder, had got the above mentioned 1.92 acres in S.No.269/1. Apart from that, on 28.05.1954, one Gundi Venkatappan had gifted 0.30 cents of land in the said Survey number. Therefore, the plaintiffs' father got 2.26 acres in the said survey number 269/1. The remaining 0.48 cents land was gifted by the said Gundi Venkatappan in favour of Tirupati Sri Venkatesa Perumal Temple through a settlement deed dated 15.07.1957. The plaintiffs' father was cultivating the said temple's land and paid Rs.20/- per annum during Puratasi month for performing pooja in the said temple. After his life time, the plaintiffs have been in possession and enjoyment of the same and are paying pooja expenses to the temple. The defendants do not have any right in the suit property and had fabricated a sale deed dated 26.11.2010 in favour of the 1^st defendant with intention to grab the suit property. Under the guise of the said sale deed, the defendants are attempting to disturb the plaintiffs'peaceful possession and enjoyment of the suit property. Hence, the suit.

4. The claim of the plaintiffs was resisted by the defendants stating that, one Molagan @ Muniappan was in possession and enjoyment of the suit property. After his demise, his wife Muniammal executed a settlement deed on 06.07.1983 in favour of her daughters namely the defendants 2 to 4. Since then, the said defendants were in possession and enjoyment of the suit property. Thereafter, the 1^st defendant purchased the suit property from the defendants 2 to 4 for a valid consideration under a registered sale deed dated 26.11.2010 and he is in possession and enjoyment of the same from the date of sale deed. Neither the plaintiffs' father Eswarappa Gounder nor the plaintiffs had been in possession and enjoyment of the suit property at any point of time. Their further contention is that, the suit property originally belonged to one Chinnappa Gounder who sold the same to one Gettusal Kathirappa Gounder as per the sale deed dated 14.03.1916. Thereafter, the legal heirs of the said Gettusal Kathirappa Gounder sold away their 3½ share in the suit property to one Kuppanna Gounder under a sale deed dated 22.12.1938. Subsequently, the grandson of Gettusal Kathirappa Gounder namely Kuppanna Gounder sold the same 3½ share in the suit property to one Eswarappa Gounder, father of the plaintiffs, under the s