JUDGMENT :

S. SOUNTHAR, J.

S.A.No.128 of 2020 is arising out of suit for declaration and injunction filed by the respondents 1 and 2, in respect of 2.62 acres in S.No.167/1A. The respondent's suit for declaration and injunction was decreed by the trial Court, only to the extent of four boundaries mentioned under Ex.A3. Aggrieved by the same, the appellants filed an appeal in A.S.No.40 of 2017. The First Appellate Court, while dismissing the appeal modified the judgment and decree passed by the trial Court and decreed the appeal. Aggrieved by the same, S.A.No.128 of 2020 has been filed.

2. S.A.No.131 of 2020 is arising out of suit for declaration and injunction filed by the appellants in respect of 0.54 cents in S.No.167/1A and also two other items of properties in S.Nos.167/2 and 166/4. Since there was no dispute between the parties in respect of items 2 and 3, the trial Court decreed the suit as far as items 2 and 3 are concerned. The suit was dismissed insofar as item one is concerned. At the time of dismissing the suit, the trial Court also observed that if the suit property does not come within the property covered by Ex.A3 then the plaintiffs are entitled to claim title over the suit property, unless they have lost their title. Aggrieved by the same, the appellants filed the appeal. The appellate Court dismissed the appeal and set aside the decree passed by the trial Court.

3. The suit in O.S.No.154 of 2008 filed by the respondents 1 and 2 is anterior in time and therefore, the evidence was recorded in that suit, in view of the same, the parties are referred to as per their ranking in O.S.No.154 of 2008.

4. The plaintiffs filed O.S.No.154 of 2008 seeking declaration of title and permanent injunction in respect of 2.62 acres in S.No.167/1A in Sajjalapalli Village, Junjupalli Tharaf, Krishnagiri Taluk. They also sought for permanent injunction restraining the 6^th defendant/Tahsildar from effecting a separate sub division in the suit property to the extent of 54 cents out of total extent of 2.62 acres. They also sought for a declaration that the order passed by the 5^th respondent/District Revenue Officer, dated 31.09.2006 was not binding on the Court. It was the case of the plaintiffs that the suit property originally belonged to one Govindasamy, after his death, the patta was transferred in the name of his wife Lakshmi Ammal, who died on 09.07.2003 and during her lifetime, she executed a Will in favour of the plaintiffs, who are her grandsons bequeathing the suit properties in their favour. The defendants, who are all the owners of the neighbouring lands on the southern side of the suit properties attempted to destroy the ridge dividing the suit property and their property. On enquiry, the plaintiffs acquired knowledge that the defendants obtained order for inclusion of their names in patta No.1176 along with the name of plaintiffs’ grandmother Lakshmi Ammal. According to the plaintiffs, the defendants’ father Chinnamunigan purchased 5 acres of land under registered Sale Deed dated 17.04.1957 from one Sippoy Munisamy and the said property is situated in the southern side of the suit property. Later, during settlement proceedings patta was issued in favour of defendants for 7.08 acres including 2.08 acres belonged to the plaintiffs grandmother Lakshmi Ammal. Therefore, in order to purchase peace, the plaintiffs’ grandfather Sippoy Govindasamy was forced to purchase 2.08 acres under registered sale deed dated 08.06.1959 from Chinnamunigan father of the defendants. 5. It is also stated by the plaintiffs, the total extent of the suit property in S.No.167/1A in 1.06.0 hectares =2.62 acres. Apart from 2.08 acres purchased by the plaintiffs from Chinnamunigan, their grandfather said to have been in possession and enjoyment of 54 cents. Therefore, the instant suit has been laid claiming right over 2.62 acres in S.No.167/1A.

6. The suit was resisted by the appellants/defendants on the ground that the father of the defendants have got tota