J U D G M E N T

This appeal basically raises a question of identity of the property in a suit for injunction. The plaintiff claims that he is in absolute possession of 64 cents covered by Exts.A1 and A2 documents, whereas the defendants also claim that they are in possession of various extents of property, which takes in the 64 cents claimed by the plaintiff.

2. The brief facts necessary for the disposal of the appeal are as follows:-

One Karuppan Chettiyar had various extents of property. The plaintiff claimed that his mother was in possession of 1 Acre 10 cents and while so, Karuppan Chettiyar transferred 64 cents by Ext.A1 sale deed to the father of the plaintiff, who later by virtue of Ext.A2 transferred the said extent in favour of the plaintiff. The defendants claims the possession on the basis of Ext.B3. According to the defendants, after the death of Karuppan Chettiyar, his son had transferred the various extents of property which consist of five taks. In O.S No.144/1991, the plaintiff sued the defendants for a permanent prohibitory injunction, based on sale deed No.567/1984 (Ext.A2 in this case). The claim of the plaintiff was negated on the ground that the plaint schedule