JUDGMENT

The appellants have preferred this Second Appeal against the Judgment and decree dated 16.12.2004 made in A.S.No.84 of 1996, on the file of the Principal Subordinate Court, Tindivanam, reversing the judgment and decree passed in O.S.No.583 of 1995, dated 19.07.1996 on the file of the District Munsif cum Magistrate Court, Vanur, Villupuram District. 2. Heard, Mrs. R. T. Sundari, learned counsel for Mr.R.Margabandhu, learned counsel for the appellant, Dr.S.Suriya, Additional Government Pleader appearing for the respondents 2 and 3 and Mr.A.K.Kumarasamy, learned Senior Counsel for Mr.S.Kaithamalai Kumaran, learned counsel appearing for the respondents 4 to 8 and perused the material available in record.

3. The appellant is the 3rd defendant in A.S.No.84 of 1996, on the file of the Principal Subordinate Court, Tindivanam, which reversed the judgment and decree passed in O.S.No.583 of 1995 by the District Munsif-

cum-Magistrate Court, Vanur, Villupuram District.

4. Before the trial court, the 1st respondent, Patchayappan, as the plaintiff, filed a suit seeking a specific prayer to declare the order of the 2nd respondent (2nd defendant) dated 31.08.1989, which canceled the patta in his name, as invalid. He further prayed for a declaration that the order directing the addition of the appellant (3rd defendant) as a joint pattadar, based on the order of the Tahsildar dated 04.07.1990, should be changed. In that suit, the appellant was added as the 3rd defendant, with the 1st defendant being the Tahsildar and the 2nd defendant being the Collector.

5. For the purpose of convenience, the parties herein are referred to as they are ranked in the suit.

6. Considering the oral and documentary evidence adduced by the plaintiffs and the defendants, the learned trial judge framed nine issues. The judge ultimately concluded that the order passed by the Tahsildar canceling the patta in the plaintiff's name was valid. If the plaintiff was aggrieved by the order, he should have preferred an appeal before the Revenue Authority. Additionally, since the plaintiff's earlier suit had been dismissed, he was estopped from filing the present suit, which was accordingly dismissed. Challenging these findings, the plaintiff preferred an appeal (A.S.No.84 of 1996) before the Principal Subordinate Judge, Tindivanam. The First Appellate Judge independently analyzed all the facts and records, finally concluding that the 3rd defendant had taken advantage of his father's name, Narayanasamy, as well as the plaintiff's vendor's name, Narayanasamy, to commit fraud upon the authorities and obtain the order of patta. The 3rd defendant also submitted false information before the trial court in the earlier suit, O.S.No.2227 of 1979, thereby committing fraud upon the court. The trial court failed to appreciate this, whereas the plaintiff had proven his possession and enjoyment of the property with a valid title, rendering the cancellation of the patta by the revenue authorities invalid. Accordingly, the suit was decreed by allowing the appeal, with consequential relief. Aggrieved by these findings, the 3rd defendant has preferred this second appeal.

7. The learned counsel for the appellant submitted that the appellant purchased 2 acres and 69 cents from Gurusamy and Murugesan through a sale deed dated 05.04.1978, and his father, Narayanasamy, had not purchased any property in respect of the suit property. Ex.A14 is the sale deed standing in his name. Therefore, the authorities rightly granted patta for the suit property. However, the lower court failed to properly appreciate Ex.A14, which requires interference.

8. He further submitted that the respondent/plaintiff had already filed a suit (O.S.No.2227 of 1979) before the District Munsif, Tindivanam, against the appellants for a declaration of title and injunction, which was dismissed. The appeal (A.S.No.128 of 1983) was also dismissed, and no second appeal was preferred by the plaintiff. In that suit, the title of the a