COMMON JUDGMENT

1.1 The appellants herein are both the legal heirs of the plaintiff and the third defendant in suit in O.S.No.157 of 1995 was laid for declaration of plaintiff's title over 2.33 acres in S.No.207/3 at Arasur Village, Thiruvadanai Taluk, Ramanathapuram District.

1.2 There are three defendants to the suit. The first defendant is the State of Tamil Nadu. The second defendant is Tahsildar and the third defendant is a private individual. When the plaintiff found certain obstruction to his assertion of title over the suit property, he laid the suit. The suit was contested by all the defendants and principally by the third defendant. The trial Court dismissed the suit, since it found that the plaintiff has not established his title to the property. However, in the course of it so doing, the trial Court has also rendered a finding that the third defendant is not entitled to the extent of property over which he asserts right.

1.3 Aggrieved by the decree of the trial Court, the plaintiff preferred A.S.No.30 of 2009 and the third defendant had preferred A.S.No.13 of 2010 challenging the finding against him. By a common judgment of the First Appellate Court, both the appeals came to be dismissed, against which the third defendant has now preferred S.A.(MD)No.712 of 2010. The plaintiff on his part had preferred S.A.(MD)No.459 of 2012.

1.4 For narrative convenience, the parties are referred to by their rank before the trial Court.

2. The case of the plaintiff is that the suit property is an estate subjected to the Tamil Nadu Estate (Abolition and Conversion into Ryotwari) Act, 1948 (Act 26 of 1948). He however, concedes that in the settlement proceedings under the Act, no patta was issued either to him or to any of his ancestors, and that the property was classified as an 'anadheenam land'. While so, this land was assigned by the Government to plaintiff's wife Vide proceedings dated 21.07.1985. However, this assignment came to be cancelled subsequently when the Government realized that the plaintiff's wife was not landless and hence was not eligible for assignment. The plaintiff asserts that notwithstanding the aforesaid facts, he is in possession and enjoyment of the property from time immemorial, and seeks declaration of title when he faced obstruction to his title from the third defendant.

3. The third defendant would contend that S.No.207/1 had a larger extent of 1.87.5 hectares. Be that as it may, during settlement proceedings, his father Karuppannan Ambalam was granted Ext.B5, patta dated 31.01.1977 for an extent of 60 ares or 1.48 acres in S.No.207/1. It appears that subsequently the extent granted under Ext.B5 came to be reduced Vide Ext.B6, proceedings dated 21.10.1977. The third defendant would plead that Ext.B6, proceedings was issued without notice to his father. Subsequently the differential extent as between Ext.B5 and Ext.B6 was assigned to the third defendant Vide proceedings of the Revenue Divisional Officer concerned, dated 09.11.1991 Vide Ext.B.7.

4. The Government had filed its written statement opposing the claim of title by the plaintiff, and supporting the case of the third defendant.

5. The dispute went to trial where both sides adduced their oral and documentary evidence. For the plaintiff, the plaintiff examined himself as P.W.1. He also examined P.W.2 to P.W.4 as independent witnesses. He had produced Ext.A.1 to Ext.A.6. For the defendants, the Village Administrative Officer was examined as D.W.1 and the 3rd defendant examined himself as D.W.2. Besides the Zonal Deputy Tahsildar was examined as D.W.3. The defendant had produced Ext.B.1 to Ext.B.13. On appreciating the evidence before it the trial Court dismissed the suit and confined the third defendant's entitlement to the extent covered by Ext.B6 and overlooked Ext.B7. As stated earlier, opposing the decree passed by the trial Court, both the plaintiff and the third defendant have filed their separate appeals in A.S.No. 30 of 2009 and A.S.No.13 of 2010