The court upheld the plaintiffs' title to the property based on misinterpretation of evidence by the first appellate court.

JUDGMENT

The plaintiffs are the appellants. They filed a suit seeking declaration of title and recovery of possession in respect of suit ‘B’ schedule property. The suit was decreed by the trial court and the first appeal filed by the respondents/defendants was allowed. Aggrieved by the same, the plaintiffs have come before this court by way of second appeal.

2. According to the plaintiffs, one Neelaveniammal owned 6,105 feet of land with east-west measurement of 185 feet and north-south measurement of 33 feet in suit survey number. She purchased the said property under registered sale deed dated 27.11.1991 marked as Exhibit A1. The said Neelaveniammal sold portion of her property on the western side with east-west measurement of 102 feet and the north-south measurement of 33 feet in favour of defendants 1 to 4 under registered sale deed dated 15.07.2004. The remaining property on the eastern side with east-west measurement of 83 feet and north-south measurement of 33 feet, totally 2739 feet was sold by Neelaveniammal in favour of plaintiffs’ vendor namely Baskaran under registered sale deed dated 05.10.2006. Subsequently, the above said Baskaran sold the property purchased by him in favour of plaintiffs under two sale deeds dated 29.09.2008 and 29.09.2008 marked as Ex.A3 and Ex.A4. The first plaintiff purchased the property with east-west measurement of 83 feet and north-south measurement of 16 feet from the above said Baskaran. The second plaintiff purchased the property with east-west measurement of 83 feet and north-south measurement of 17 feet from the above said vendor. Thus, the plaintiffs have been in possession and enjoyment of the said property with east-west measurement of 83 feet and north-south measurement of 33 feet from the date of purchase. It is further stated by the appellants that the defendants committed trespass into the portion of their property on the western side and encroached strip of land with east-west measurement of 13 feet and north-south measurement of 33 feet and put up a compound wall encompassing the encroached portion. The plaintiffs issued a legal notice to the defendants requesting them to remove the compound wall and surrender the possession of the encroached portion on 29.07.2011. However, the defendants failed to give any reply. Therefore, the plaintiffs were constrained to file a suit for the abovesaid reliefs.

3. The defendants filed a written statement denying the title of the plaintiffs over the suit ‘B’ schedule property. It was the specific case of the defendants that the property purchased by the defendants lies in New Survey.No. 1712/9A and the property purchased by the plaintiffs is situated in New Survey.No. 1712/9B. It is also stated by the defendants that the suit ‘B’ schedule property shown as encroached portion by the plaintiffs forms part of the property purchased by them which is situated in Survey.No. 1712/9A. It is also specifically pleaded by the defendants that they became owner of the property situated in Survey.No. 1712/9A with an extent of 3366 square feet by virtue of registered sale deed executed by the said Neelaveniammal dated 15.07.2004. It is also stated that immediately after purchase, the defendants surveyed the property and had put up compound wall on eastern side demarcating the boundaries. The plaintiffs’ vendor purchased the remaining property from the very same vendor Neelaveniammal. It is also stated that the defendants were the previous purchasers and therefore, the plaintiffs could have only purchased what was remaining with the common vendor. After purchase by the defendan