J U D G M E N T

The plaintiff in O.S.No.182 of 2008, who was able to convince the trial Court to decree the partition suit, upon its reversal by the lower Appellate Court, has come up with this Second Appeal.

2.The plaintiff sued for partition contending that his father had purchased an extent of 1.75 acres of land in Survey No.36/1A 1B at Muthumothanmozhi Village, Radhapuram Taluk, Tirunelveli District, under a sale deed dated 01.03.1955. The father of the plaintiff namely Pauldurai Nadar sold an extent of 96 cents to one Vellapazham Nadar on 20.02.1969. Claiming that the property remained undivided, the plaintiff would seek partition and separate possession of his 78 cents of land, which remained at the hands of his father and after the death of his father, the same was inherited by the plaintiff.

3.The Suit was resisted by the defendants contending that the vendors of the plaintiff's father were not entitled to an extent of 1.75 acres in the suit survey number. The defendants would contend that the vendors of the plaintiff's father were entitled to only 58 cents of land in the suit survey number as they are entitled only 2/3rd share in the extent of 88.11 cents purchased by three brothers on 09.04.1928. The defendants would further contend that the sale deed executed by Pauldurai Nadar in favour of Vellapazham Nadar dealt with specific extent of property within four boundries and not an undivided property.

Therefore the suit for partition is ill-conceived.

4.At trial, the plaintiff was examined as PW 1 and two other witnesses namely Raja Boopathy and Chithirai Murugesan were examined as PW 2 and PW 3. Exs.A1 to A17 were marked. The husband of the 6th defendant Muthu was examined as DW 1 and Exs.B1 to B9 were marked.

5.Upon consideration of the evidence on record, the learned trial Judge agreed with the claim of the plaintiff and granted a decree for partition. Aggrieved, the 6th defendant preferred an appeal in A.S.No.102 of 2014. Upon reconsideration of the evidence, the learned Subordinate Judge, Valliyur has concluded that the plaintiff has not established that he would be entitled to 79 cents of land in the suit survey number, after the sale by his father in favour of one Vellapazham Nadar. The learned judge has also concluded that Ex.A1 Sale deed conveyed a specific extent of property within specific boundaries and therefore there is no question of plaintiff being in joint possession with the defendants. With the above said conclusion, the learned Appellate Judge reversed the findings of the trial Court and dismissed the suit. Hence, this second appeal. 6.I have heard the learned counsel appearing for the appellant. He would strenuously contend that the Appellate Court was not right in reversing the well considered findings of the trial Court. He would point out that one of the three brothers namely vendors of the plaintiff's father had died as bachelor and therefore remaining two brothers enjoyed the entire extent of 88.11 cents. It is further claimed that the title of Pauldurai Nadar to an extent of 1.75 acres cannot be disposed of, as he sold out 96 cents in favour of Vellapazham Nadar as early as in the year 1969. The learned counsel would also further contend that the Appellate Court was not right in reversing the findings of the trial Court without considering the evidence in full.

7.I have considered the submissions of the learned counsel for the appellant. The lower Appellate Court has rendered its specific findings that the vendors of the plaintiff's father were not entitled to entire 88.11 cents. It is a further finding of the Appellate Court that the plaintiff is unable to establish the title of his father to the entire extent of 1.75 acres. The lower Appellate Court has also concluded that since the description of the property in Ex.A1 Sale Deed is with specific boundaries, the plaintiff cannot let in evidence against the contents of the document and succeed on that basis.

8.Despite his best efforts, the learned