JUDGMENT

The defendants are the appellants.

2.The plaintiff filed O.S.No.44 of 1999 before the District Munsif Cum Judicial Magistrate Court, Vilathikulam for declaration of title over the third item of the suit schedule property and for permanent injunction. The suit was decreed by the trial Court. The defendants filed A.S.No.9 of 2002 before the Sub Court, Kovilpatti. The first appeal was also dismissed. As against the same, the defendants 1 to 5 have filed the above second appeal.

3.The plaintiff had contended that the first schedule property was originally purchased under Exhibit A1 dated 19.08.1940 by one Gurusamy Kudumban. The plaintiff further contended that the said Gurusamy Kudumban was in possession and enjoyment of the suit schedule property and after his death, it devolved upon his son Kachakkatti. The said Kachakkatti had died 35 years back without execution of any document. The plaintiff is the son of the said Kachakkatti and he is in enjoyment of the suit first item of the property. According to the plaintiff, north of the first item of the property, he is having a house and vacant site bearing Door No.5/69. The plaintiff has constructed a varanda on the south of the said house which falls within the first schedule property. The portion in which, Varanda is constructed in the first schedule property is shown as second schedule property. The vacant site in the first schedule property is shown as third schedule property. According to the plaintiff, the defendants without any right, title or possession are attempting to make a claim over the third schedule property. Hence, the present suit for declaration and permanent injunction over the third schedule property. The plaintiff further contended that under Exhibit A1 sale deed, east-west measurement is 30 feet and he is in actual enjoyment of east-west measurement of 40 feet and he has also acquired title by adverse possession for the excess land within the boundaries mentioned in Exhibit A1 sale deed.

4.The defendants filed a written statement disputing the genuineness and validity of Exhibit A1 sale agreement. The defendants further contended that the plaintiff is not having house property to the north of the first schedule property. The defendants further contended that the measurement and four boundaries in the suit schedule properties are not correct. They further contended that the suit schedule properties originally belonged to the community of Nagalapuram Devendrakulam. Without impleading the said institution, the present suit is bad for non joinder of necessary parties.

5.The trial Court found that the boundaries under Exhibit A1 tally with the plaint schedule property except on the northern side. However, the trial Court relied upon the deposition of the second defendant who was examined as DW2 to arrive at a finding that the measurement of the boundary recitals in the suit schedule properties are tallying with Exhibit A1 sale deed. That apart, the trial Court also arrived at a finding that the defendants have not produced any document to show that the suit schedule property belongs to the community of Devendrakulam. Based upon the said findings, the trial court decreed the suit as prayed for.

6.The First Appellate Court also arrived at a finding that the plaintiff has proved his title and possession over the suit schedule property and the defendants have not proved that the suit schedule property belongs to the sangam of Devendrakulam. Hence, the First Appellate Court concurred with the findings of the trial Court and dismissed the appeal. As against the concurrent findings, the present second appeal has been filed by the defendants.

7.The second appeal has been admitted on the following substantial question of law.

“a)whether the Courts below erred in law in holding that the plaintiff is entitled to larger extent than what was conveyed under Exhibit A1 sale deed, particularly when the plaintiff failed to establish his case of adverse possession with respect t