J U D G M E N T

1. The unsuccessful defendants are the appellants.

2. The plaintiff, the first respondent herein filed the suit seeking relief of declaration of title to the suit property and for consequential injunction to restrain the defendants ie., the appellants herein from interferring with his peaceful possession of the suit property.

3. The parties are referred as per rank in the original suit for the sake of convenience.

4. The plaintiff, claiming that the suit property originally belonged to Venkatesa Naidu and his brother Kannusamy Naidu and that on 12.06.1951, they divided the same in and by means of an unregistered partition list, under which the suit property was alloted to the share of Venkatesa Naidu and that subsequently the said Venkatesa Naidu and his sons, in and by a registered Partitition Deed dated 23.03.1970 divided the family properties, in which the subject suit property was listed in Serial No.17 of Scheduel 'A' was alloted to Venkatesa Naidu; subsequently there was an oral partition under which the suit property was alloted to one of the sons of Venkatesa Naidu, by name Narayanasamy; from him, the plaintiff purchased the same on 05.10.1989; the plaintiff obtained Patta No.587 and that he has been in peaceful possession and enjoyment of the suit property ever since. It is the case of the plaintiff that the 1st defendant issued a notice on 07.05.1995 claiming rights over the suit property. The plaintiff sent a reply notice on 02.04.1996. Thereafter on 25.07.1999, the defendants attempted to trespass into the suit property and under the said circumstances, the plaintiff approached the Court with the above mentioned reliefs.

5. The contention of the third defendant in his Written statement which was adopted by the 2nd defendant was that Narayanasamy had no right to sell the suit property to the plaintiff and that the suit property was the ancestral property of the 1st defendant who had obtained Patta No.19, who was also paying kist for the suit property and that the patta obtained by Narayanasamy was fraudulent and Narayansamy and his sons were not in enjoyment of the suit property. According to the defendants, the 1st defendant had executed a Power of Attorney in favour of his father on 25.01.1996 and the 2nd defendant alone is in enjoyment of the suit property with the assistance of the 3rd defendant.

6. Before the Trial Court, the plaintiff examined 3 witnesses and exhibits A1 to A10 were marked. On the side of the defendants, two witnesses were examined and Ex.B1 to Ex.B6 were marked. The trial Court decreed the suit as prayed for, as against which, the defendants preferred a 1st appeal in A.S. No.48 of 2002 before the Principal District Judge, Villupuram. The 1st Appellate Court, after scrutinising the available documents, pleadings and oral evidence of the parties, held that Narayanasamy had legal right and title to convey the suit property effectively to the plaintiff and that the plaintiff was entitled to get the relief of declaration and permanent injunction holding that the plaintiff was in lawful possession of the suit property. The case of the defendants that the suit property was the ancestral property of the 1st defendant was negatived and the appeal came to be dismissed.

7. Assailing the concurrent findings of the Courts below, the defendants have filed the present second appeal contending that Ex.A2 Sale deed under which the plaintiff purchased the suit property did not support the title of the plaintiff's vendor and that the Courts below failed to see from the Adangal extract Ex.B.1 that it was only the defendants who were in possession and not the plaintiff.

8. I have heard Mrs. R. Meenal, counsel for the appellant and Mr. T. Gandhi, counsel for the 1st respondent/ the plaintiff.

9. The learned counsel for the appeallant would vehemently contend that the defendants were the neighbours of the vendor of the plaintiff and even in the sale deed, only the extent was mentioned and the property was