A registered sale deed over 40 years old provides significant weightage to establish title, and a party relying on such a document is not required to prove the vendor's title, especially when the opposing party fails to produce any title documents and relies solely on revenue records (patta).

JUDGMENT

The plaintiff in the suit is the appellant. He filed a suit for declaration of title and permanent injunction. The suit was decreed by the trial Court and the findings of the trial Court are reversed by the First Appellate Court. Hence the plaintiff has come before this Court.

2. According to the plaintiff, the total extent of property situated in suit S.FNo.480/6 Grama Natham is 536 sq meters. It was originally belonged to father of the defendants Gopal Naidu and one Sheik Jaffar Sahib. The above said Gopal Naidu is entitled to an extent of 81 sq. meters on the western side and the remaining extent of 455 sq meters on the eastern side belongs to the said Sheik Jaffar Sahib. He executed a sale deed in favour of plaintiff’s mother on 17.03.1970, which was marked as Ex.A1 selling property on the eastern side with linear measurement of 84 ft north-south and 59 ft east-west. The total extent of property conveyed to plaintiff’s mother was 4956 sq. ft which is equivalent to 460.42 sq. meters. The plaintiff further states that though the measurement has been mentioned as 84 ft north-south in the sale deed only 81 ft alone is in existence on ground. The plaintiff’s mother has been in possession and enjoyment of the said property from the date of sale and she had constructed thatched house in eastern portion and also a cattle shed in the western portion of the property purchased by her.

3. The plaintiff’s mother – Sarojini Ammal out of love and affection had executed a registered settlement deed dated 06.01.2012 in favour of the plaintiff. In the said document, the linear measurement of the property settled was mentioned as 84 ft north-south and 60 ft east-west. But, however an extent of 81 ft north-south and 59 ft east-west alone is in existence on ground. Since the plaintiff’s mother purchased the property with linear east-west measurement of 59 sq. ft, the plaintiff confines his right over the said extent of the property alone for the present.

4. It is the further case of the plaintiff that the defendants who own the property on the western side executed a partition deed dated 02.11.2015 among themselves, wherein a portion of the plaintiff’s property was also included. Based on the joint patta, the defendants claimed right over ½ share of the suit survey number on the eastern side and attempted to interfere with the plaintiff’s possession. Therefore, the plaintiff was constrained to file the suit for declaration.

5. The defendants filed a written statement and contested the claim of the plaintiff by denying the title of above mentioned Sarojini Ammal. The defendants claim that all along the defendants’ grandfather and plaintiff’s mother had been in possession and enjoyment of the suit property. It is also stated that joint patta has been issued in the year 1995 by Deputy Tahsildar, Arakkonam in favour of plaintiff’s mother Sarojini Ammal and defendants’ father Devaraj recognising their equal right over the suit property. It is the further case of the defendants that there was a partition among the defendants on 02.11.2015, wherein the eastern half was allotted to the share of first defendant. Therefore, it is the specific case of the defendants in the written statement that the plaintiff’s predecessor namely Sheik Jaffar Sahib had no right to convey the property on the eastern half. The