J U D G M E N T

This appeal is directed against the impugned judgement and decree dated 03.02.2012, passed by the Principal Sub Court, Tiruvannamalai in A.S.No.59 of 2006. For the sake of convenience, the ranks of the parties before the trial court shall be referred in this order unless the context requires otherwise.

2. The appellant was the defendant in O.S.No.18 of 2003 before the Additional District Munsif Court, Tiruvannamalai (also referred to as the Trial Court unless the context requires otherwise) which was decreed by the Trial Court.

3. The said suit was filed by the plaintiff (respondent herein) for a declaration of title to the suit schedule property measuring an extent of 3 cents in the northern portion of Re-Survey.No.105/1B/1 and for a permanent injunction to restrain the defendant (appellant herein) from interfering with the peaceful possession over the same. The said suit was decreed by the Trial Court.

4. The appellant had filed A.S.No.59 of 2006 against judgement and decree dated 30.3.2005 passed by the Additional District Munsif Court, Tiruvannamalai in O.S.No.18 of 2003.

5. By the impugned judgement and decree dated 03.02.2012, the Principal Sub Court, Tiruvannamalai (hereinafter referred to as the Appellate Court) had dismissed the appeal filed by the appellant(defendant) in A.S.No.59 of 2006.

6. The plaintiff (respondent herein) had filed the above suit on the strength of Ex.A.3 Sale deed dated 7.4.2000. The case of the plaintiff before the Trial Court was that the plaintiff purchased the aforesaid property measuring an extent of 3 cents from one Jothiammal and her son Manickavasagam who are the descendants of the original allottee, Annasamy Nainar to whom 6 cents of land in Re-survey No.105/1B/1 was allotted and Ex.A1 dated 31.7.1974 Patta was issued.

7. The original allottee, Annasamy Nainar died about 25 years back and that the original allottee Annasamy Nainar's daughter Amaravathy Ammal had left the village about 30 years back and that after the death of the original allottee Annasamy Nainar, his granddaughter namely Jothiammal [D/o Amaravathy Ammal along with her husband Kathirvel] were in possession of the land allotted to the said Annasamy Nainar.

8. It was further case of the plaintiff that the said Kathirvel, the husband of Jothiammal was issued with Exs.B1 to B3 Patta vide Patta No. 481 along with three others.

9. It was submitted that after the death of Kathirvel, the plaintiff's vendors Jothiammal [ W/o late. Kathirvel /D/o. Amaravathy Ammal] and Manickavasagam [S/o late. Kathirvel & Jothiammal (one of the vendor) who is the grandson of Amaravathy Ammal and great grandson of the original allottee, Annasamy Nainar] along with his mother, Jothiammal sold an extent of 3 cents on the northern side to the plaintiff vide Ex.A.3 Sale deed dated 7.4.2000.

10. The further case of the plaintiff before the Trial Court was that the plaintiff was in possession of the said property on which he had put up a thatched house.

11. The defendant (appellant herein) resisted the above suit filed by the plaintiff. It was stated that the defendant had purchased the entire extent of 6 cents of the property way-back in 1985 under a oral sale from Amaravathy Ammal.

12. It was submitted that the said Amaravathy Ammal is the daughter of the original allottee, Annasamy Nainar and that Ex.B-4 Patta No.263 dated 14.4.1989 was issued by the Tiruvannamalai Tahsildar to the defendant and that the defendant was in possession of the suit schedule property along with the property in the southern portion.

13. It was further the case of the defendant that the defendant was in possession of the entire extent of 6 cents of land on which the defendant had put up a concrete house and 2 tiled huts and therefore Ex.A3-Sale Deed dated 7.4.2000 in favour of the plaintiff was bad and therefore the suit was liable to be dismissed.

14. It was further case of the defendant that his vendor Amaravathy Ammal was still alive and that there were other legal h