JUDGMENT

The plaintiffs are the appellants herein.

2. The plaintiffs filed O.S.No.78 of 2003 before the learned District Munsif Court, Devakottai for the relief of declaration and for permanent injunction. The suit was decreed as prayed for. As against the same, the defendants 1 to 5 and 7 filed A.S.No.33 of 2004 before the learned Subordinate Court, Devakottai. The learned Subordinate Judge was pleased to allow the appeal and dismissed the suit. As against the same, the plaintiffs have filed the above second appeal.

3. The plaintiffs contended that they are the owners of Southern 40 cents out of 80 cents in Survey No.116/5. According to the plaintiffs, the suit schedule property was the ancestral property. The plaintiffs further contended that the suit schedule properties originally belonged to one Arunachalam Servai and it devolved upon his son Sirakillikutty Servai and thereafter, it devolved upon Periannan, and then, upon Sornam and then upon one, Kalimuthu, who is the father of the plaintiffs. The plaintiffs further contended that a joint patta was issued in their favour under Ex.A.1 on 24.08.1983 and since the defendants have raised objection before the revenue authorities, the present suit for declaration and injunction has filed.

4. The defendants filed the written statement disputing the genealogy and also disputed the fact that the suit property originally belonged to one Arunachalam Servai. On the other hand, the defendants contended that the suit property originally belonged to one Ramasamy, who is the ancestor of the defendants. The defendants marked Ex.B.1-S.L.R copy to establish that the property is registered in the name of one Ramasamy, who is the father of the defendants 1and 7 and grandfather of the defendants 3 to 5 and 6. The defendants further contended that there is no proper pleading with regard to the relationship of the parties and in the absence of any proper pleading, no amount of evidence can be let in by the plaintiffs. The defendants further contended that the plaintiffs have not produced any document to the effect that the suit properties belonged to Arunachalam Servai. The defendants further contended that the plaintiffs without any notice to the defendants, had got their names included in the joint patta under Ex.A.1 in the year 1987 and then, the defendants filed an appeal before the Sub-Collector. The present suit has been filed.

5. The trial Court had relied upon Ex.A.1 patta, Exs.A.5, A.6, A.7 and A.8 kist receipt to arrive at a conclusion that the plaintiffs have got right and title to the suit schedule property and decreed the suit as prayed for. The first appellate Court gave a finding that Exs.A.5 and A.6 recitals do not relate to the suit property. That apart, the first appellate Court also arrived at a finding that there is no material on record to show that the plaintiffs'

father is the legal heir of Arunachalam Servai.

6. The first appellate Court also held that Exs.A.5 and A6 do not disclose the proper genealogy of the plaintiffs and Exs.A.7 and A.8 will not support the case of the plaintiffs. The first appellate Court also rejected Ex.A.1-patta on the ground that the plaintiffs' names have been inserted in the said patta during U.D.R proceedings without any notice to the defendants. The appellate Court also found that when the trial Court rejected Exs.B.1 to B.4 on the ground that they are only revenue records, it should not have accepted Exs.A.1 to A.8 which are also revenue records. The first appellate Court also found that there is no pleading in the plaint with regard to Exs.A.9 to A.10 and hence, those documents could not be relied upon. The appellate Court also rejected Ex.A.10 document on the ground that the boundary recitals in the said sale deed are not inter-parties and hence, the same is not binding upon the defendants. On the above said findings, the first appellate Court also found that when there is a joint patta in the name of the plaintiffs as well as the defendants und