In a title dispute where overlapping property descriptions exist, a court cannot determine the superior title based solely on the date of execution; it must appoint an advocate commissioner to identify the specific locations of the properties against the respective title deeds and revenue records.

JUDGMENT :

S.SOUNTHAR, J.

The plaintiff is the appellant. He filed a suit for declaration of title and injunction in respect of suit ‘A’ schedule property and recovery of possession in respect of suit ‘B’ schedule property. The trial Court granted a decree for declaration and injunction in respect of suit ‘A’ schedule property and granted recovery of possession of ‘B’ schedule property. Aggrieved by the same, the 2^nd defendant preferred an appeal in A.S.No.9 of 2016. The First Appellate Court reversed the findings of the Trial Court and dismissed the suit. Aggrieved by the same, the plaintiff has come before this Court.

2. According to the plaintiff, the suit property was purchased by him under registered sale deed dated 22.03.1982 and he has been in possession and enjoyment of the same right from the date of purchase. The defendants are owning properties on the eastern and southern sides of the properties. Without having any manner of right over the suit property, the defendants have attempted to interfere with the plaintiff’s possession. Therefore, the suit was initially laid for declaration of title and injunction.

3. According to the plaintiff, pending the suit, the 2^nd defendant committed trespass into the portion of the suit ‘A’ schedule property and hence the same has been described as ‘B’ schedule property and relief of recovery of possession was included in the plaint by way of amendment.

4. It is also seen from the typed set of papers that the suit was not pressed as against the defendants 1, 3 to 6 and the suit was proceeded only as against the 2^nd defendant.

5. The 2^nd defendant filed a written statement, denying the title of the plaintiff over the suit property. It was specific case of the 2^nd defendant that the plaintiff’s vendor had no title to convey the plaintiff.

6. It is also stated by the defendants that he has been in possession and enjoyment of the suit ‘B’ schedule property for more than four decades and the plaintiff has no title or possession over the same. Thus denying the title and possession of the plaintiff, the 2^nd defendant sought for dismissal of the suit.

7. Before the Trial Court, the plaintiff was examined as PW.1 and seven documents were marked as Exs.A1 to A7. The 2^nd defendant was examined as DW.1, Village Administrative Officer was examined as DW.2 and Assistant Taluk Officer was examined as DW.3. On behalf of the defendants, nine documents were marked as Ex.B1 to B9. The Adangal extract for fasli year 1378 to 1383 was marked as Ex.X1.

8. The Trial Court on appreciation of oral and documentary evidence available on record, came to the conclusion that the plaintiff established his right, title and possession of the suit property and granted a decree for declaration of title and injunction in respect of ‘A’ schedule property. The Trial Court also found that the plaintiff was entitled for recovery of possession of ‘B’ schedule property and decreed the suit as prayed for.

9. Aggrieved by the same, the defendants filed an appeal in A.S.No.9 of 2016, on the file of the Subordinate Judge, Pollachi. The First Appellate Court reversed the findings of the trial Court and dismissed the suit. Aggrieved by the same, the plaintiff has come before this Court.

10. At the time of admission, this Court formulated the following substantial questions of law, by order dated 10.03.2020:

“ 1. Whether the lower appellate Court is correct to rejecting the sale deed of the appellant under Ex.A1 and patta under Ex.A2?

2. Whether the lower appellate Court is correct in reversing in the judgment on the basis that the respondent is in possession of property more than 45 years.

3. Whether the lower Appellate Court is ri