JUDGMENT :

N. Mala, J.

(1)This Second Appeal is directed against the concurrent judgments and decrees of the Courts below, dismissing the suit filed by the plaintiff seeking declaration of title and permanent injunction.

(2)Brief facts of the case are as follows:

(a)The plaintiff is the appellant in the Second Appeal. The suit property is described as a vacant land, measuring 26 feet East-West and 22 feet North-South, in a larger extend of 86 feet East-West and 22 feet North- South, with the following boundaries:- North-defendants' house ; South-Sulthan's house ; East-Sardhar Khan house ; and West-plaintiff's house and a vacant site.

(b)The suit property originally belonged to one Muthuasanisai Rowther. After his demise, his three sons, Kasim Mohammed Rowther, Ismail Rowther and Ayub Rowther, enjoyed the suit property and in the year 1937, they executed a registered Partition Deed in which, the suit property and its adjacent property, fell to the share of Kasim Mohammed Rowther and Ismail Rowther. Ismail Rowther was allotted the Northern portion and Kasim Mohammed Rowther was allotted the Southern portion. Ismail Rowther sold his share of the property to the plaintiff's mother, Beevi Ammal, on 02.07.1940, under a registered Sale Deed. Thereafter, the plaintiff's mother, Beevi Ammal, executed a Settlement Deed with respect to the aforesaid property in favour of the plaintiff and her two other sons. The plaintiff's brothers orally gifted [Hiba] their share to the plaintiff in the year 1975, pursuant thereto, the plaintiff became the exclusive owner of the Northern portion of the suit property and the adjacent properties. On 28.05.1976, Kasim Mohammed Rowther, sold his share in the Southern portion of the suit property, to the plaintiff under a Registered Sale Deed. The plaintiff pursuant to the above transactions, claimed to be the absolute owner of the entire property, i.e., North-South-22 feet and East-West-86 feet.

(c)The plaintiff stated that the suit property to an extent of 10 feet, was used as Kollai [backyard] by him. The defendants who were having property to the North of the suit property, without any right, tried to encroach upon the suit property and therefore, the plaintiff filed the suit for declaration of his title to the suit property and for permanent injunction, restraining the defendants from interfering with his peaceful possession and enjoyment. The plaintiff also claimed title to the property by adverse possession.

(d)The defendants filed a written statement, contending that the entire property is comprised in S.No.619, and that the sub-division number relating to the suit property had not been specified. According to them, in the absence of western boundary of the plaintiff's property, being clearly stated, the plaintiff could not claim the entire extent of 86 feet East-west and 22 feet North-South. The defendants denied that the plaintiff's predecessors in title, had any right over the property. They alleged that there existed a pathway to the West of the plaintiff's suit property, which had been suppressed by him and therefore, the claim of the plaintiff that the suit property formed a part of his house property, was false. The defendants also denied the title of the plaintiff's vendor, under the sale dated 02.07.1940, the Settlement Deed dated 02.09.1969, executed by the plaintiff's mother and the alleged oral gift [Hiba], said to have been made by the plaintiff’s brothers in his favour . The defendants also disputed the Sale Deed dated 28.05.1976, and contended that the plaintiff could not claim title based on the said document. According to the defendants, the property lying to the east of the Panchayat road, belonged to them and not to the plaintiff. They further contended that the property situated to the South of plaintiff’s house also belonged to them and therefore, the plaintiff’s claim over the suit property was untenable.

(e)The defendants also pleaded that the suit property originally belonged to one