The captioned Second Appeal is filed by the

defendants feeling aggrieved by the divergent findings

recorded by the Courts below. The Appellate Court has

decreed the suit in entirety.

2.

For the sake of convenience, the parties are referred

to as per their rank before the Trial Court.

3.

The plaintiff instituted a suit in O.S.No.218/2001

seeking relief of declaration of title and for permanent

injunction. The subject matter of the suit are three

agricultural lands which are referred as item Nos.1 to 3 in

the schedule. Plaintiff claimed that item Nos. 1 and 2 are

ancestral properties and after the death of defendant's

father, defendant has sold item Nos.1 and 2 under the

registered sale deeds dated 14.05.1971 and 23.09.1971

vide Exs.P.7 and 8. The plaintiff further contended that he

has jointly purchased item No.3 along with defendant

under

registered

sale

deed

dated

28.10.1969

and

4

therefore, claimed that he is entitled for 1/2 share in the

schedule property. On these set of pleadings, plaintiff

claimed relief of declaration and injunction.

4. Defendant on receipt of summons tendered appearance.

Defendant admitted the claim of plaintiff insofar as item

No.3 is concerned. Defendant contended that he has

jointly purchased item No.3 along with plaintiff, therefore,

admitted the legitimate share of plaintiff in item No.3.

Insofar as item Nos.1 and 2 are concerned, defendant

stoutly denied the title of plaintiff and claimed that he is in

exclusive possession and enjoyment over the schedule

properties bearing item Nos.1 and 2.

[

5.

Plaintiff to substantiate his claim examined himself

as P.W.1 and two independent witnesses as P.Ws.2 and 3

and adduced documentary evidence vide Exs.P.1 to P.17

while defendant examined himself as D.W.1 and one

independent witness as D.W.2 and relied on documentary

evidence vide Exs.D.1 to. D.16.

5

[

6.

The Trial Court decreed the suit insofar item No.3 is

concerned. However, the Trial court has proceeded to

dismiss the suit insofar as item Nos.1 and 2 are concerned.

The Trial Court while considering the claim of the plaintiff

insofar item Nos.1 and 2 are concerned, declined to accept

the title document in favour of plaintiff vide Ex.P.9. The

Trial court was of the view that plaintiff though is the

genitive brother of defendant, was given in adoption. While

P.W.2, who is the elder brother of plaintiff and defendant

was separated in 1963. Therefore, the Trial Court was of

the view that P.W.2 being the elder brother, who had

already separated during the minority of the defendant,

had no authority to sell item Nos.1 and 2 on behalf of

defendant in favour of plaintiff. It is in this background, the

Trial Court declined to grant relief of declaration insofar as

item Nos.1 and 2 are concerned.

[

7.

Plaintiff feeling aggrieved by the judgment and

decree of the Trial Court insofar as item Nos.1 and 2 are

concerned, preferred an appeal before the Appellate Court

6

in

R.A.No.316/2007.

The

Appellate

Court

having

independently assessed oral and documentary evidence,

however, was not inclined to concur with the reasons and

conclusions recorded by the Trial Court. The Appellate

Court was of the view that some entries in the revenue

record would not in itself create title in favour of plaintiff.

Referring to the title documents, more particularly Exs.P.7

and 8, the Appellate Court was of the view that the same

establishes the title of the plaintiff. The Appellate Court

was of the view that registered documents have some

sanctity and the title documents cannot be suspected

unless there is substantial evidence indicating that the

same was obtained by way of fraudulent act. It is in this

background, the Appellate Court was of the view that

plaintiff has succeeded in establishing his title and

possession over item Nos.1 and 2. The Appellate Court has

proceeded to allow the appeal and the suit is decreed in its

entirety. These divergent findings are under challenge at

the instance of defendants.

7

8.

Heard learned