JUDGMENT

This second appeal has been filed against the judgment and decree in A.S No. 112 of 2002 dated 06.08.2003 on the file of the District Judge, Thiruvannamalai setting aside the judgment and decree in O.S No. 402 of 1999 dated 31.10.2002 on the file of the Additional District Munsiff, Thiruvannamalai.

2. The case of the plaintiff is that the suit property in the plaint schedule is originally belongs to the one Narayan Iyer and his brother Saminatha Iyer @ chinnasamy Iyer. They effected the partition of the scheduled mentioned property along with other joint family properties under the registered partition deed dated 13.07.1903. Both of them were in possession and enjoyment of the same in their life time subsequently as they were away from the suit village in the course of their employement the house became dilapidated and has almost become a vacant site. While so, the plaintiff purchased the said vacant site from the heirs of the original owner under the registered Sale deed dated 16.08.1990. In fact, as per the agreement dated 30.12.1980 the possession of the property was delivered to him in the year 1980 itself. Therefore, even from the year 1980 onwards the plaintiff was in possession of the property thereafter he became the absolute owner as per the sale deed of the year 1990. After that, he obtained patta under UDR scheme for the said property. While so, the defendant 1 and 2 father and son who have no right over the property falsely claimed that they are the real owners of the property by way of possession and enjoyment of the property for more than three decades. Therefore, they raised objection before the revenue authorities in respect of issuance of patta, on enquiry on 04.02.1993 their application was dismissed against which they preferred an appeal before the DRO and the same also dismissed in the year 1996. Thereafter, the defendant attempted to trespass the property. Hence, the plaintiff filed the suit.

3. The contention of the defendant is that the neither the plaintiff nor his vendors and their predecessors in title were in possession and enjoyment of the property and also contend that the suit property as described in the plaint is not been possessed and enjoyed by the erstwhile vendor of the plaintiff and heirs family. Thereby denied the partition deed and sale deed relied by the plaintiff. Further, they contended that more than 100 years the first defendant and his grandfather were in possession and enjoyement of the property and they have title over the same but by giving false information the plaintiff obtained patta and also the description found in the sale deed, partition deed totally differs thereby the plaintiff is not entitled for any relief as he claimed in the suit prayed to dismiss the suit.

4. After considering the oral and documentary evidence and the trial court concluded that Ex.A3 to Ex.A8 clearly shows that the plaintiff was in possession and enjoyment of the suit property and decreed the suit in favour of the plaintiff.

5. Challenging the findings of the Trial Court, the defendant's filed the appeal before the District Judge, Thiruvannamalai, in AS No. 112 of 2002, wherein the first appellate judge independently analysed the facts and evidence of the case concluded that the plaintiff not able to identify the property but he purchased the property with the same extent as found in Ex.A1 partition deed however not tallied with the description of the property found in the plaint schedule. Besides, he has not taken steps to claim the title of the property and there is no material evidence to prove the possession and enjoyment of the property in the year 1980-90 and also observed that patta granted by the revenue authorities not a document of title. Further the appellate Judge not accepted that the suit property originally belongs to the Narayaan Iyer family. Accordingly, appeal was allowed thereby suit was dismissed by concluding that defendants are in possession and enjoyment of the suit pro