JUDGMENT

1. The unsuccessful defendants are the appellants herein.

2. The predecessor in interest of the respondents, namely, Vanitha filed a suit in O.S.No.15 of 2016 seeking declaration of title and recovery of possession of the suit property and the said suit was decreed by the Trial Court. The findings of the Trial Court were affirmed by the first appellate Court. Aggrieved by the concurrent findings of the courts below, the defendants have filed the present second appeal.

3. Initially, the deceased first respondent/plaintiff filed a suit for bare injunction and thereafter, the prayer was amended by including a prayer for declaration of title and recovery of possession on the ground that the defendants trespassed into the suit property, pending suit. It is the case of the deceased plaintiff that the suit property in survey No.326/4B1 with an extent of 0.12 cents was purchased by her from one Mahalingam, under sale deed dated 06.07.2015 and thereafter, the revenue records got mutated in her favour and she had been in possession and enjoyment of the same. The further case of the plaintiff is that the defendants attempted to purchase the suit property from the vendor of the plaintiff, however, it was refused by the vendor and he sold the suit property to the plaintiff. Aggrieved by the same, the defendants attempted to interfere with the possession of the plaintiff. Hence, the suit was filed by the plaintiff seeking bare injunction. Subsequently, plaint was amended and a plea was raised by the plaintiff that the defendants trespassed into the suit property pending suit and hence, the prayer was amended by including the prayer for declaration of title and recovery of possession.

4. The defendants filed a written statement and denied the title of the plaintiff’s vendor Mahalingam. It was further pleaded by the defendants that the suit property belonged to their maternal grandmother Avaniammal and she executed a Will dated 22.07.1997 bequeathing the suit property in favour of the first defendant’s mother. It is further stated that taking advantage of the absence of patta in favour of the defendants in respect of 0.10 cents in the suit property, the present suit has been filed with false allegations. On these pleadings, the defendants sought for dismissal of the suit.

5. Before the Trial Court, the deceased plaintiff, namely Vanitha was examined as PW1 and on behalf of the plaintiff, 5 documents were marked as Ex.A1 to Ex.A5. On the side of the defendants, the 2nd defendant was examined as DW1 and two other witnesses were examined as DW2 and DW3 and 2 documents were marked as Ex.B1 and Ex.B2.

6. On appreciation of oral and documentary evidence available on records, the trial court came to the conclusion that the plaintiff proved her title over the suit property and granted decree for declaration of title and recovery of possession. Aggrieved by the same, the defendants preferred an appeal in A.S.No.26 of 2018 on the file of Subordinate Judge, Mannargudi. Pending first appeal, the sole plaintiff Vanitha died and her legal representatives were brought on record as respondents 2 to 7 in the first appeal. The first appellate court affirmed the findings of the trial court. Challenging the concurrent findings of the courts below, the defendants have come before this by way of filing the present second appeal.

7. The learned counsel for the appellant/defendants vehemently contended that though the title of the plaintiff’s vendor namely, Mahalingam was disputed by the defendants, the plaintiff failed to establish the title of her vendor. In such circumstances, placing reliance on Ex.A1 to Ex.A5, the courts below ought not have granted a decree for declaration in favour of the plaintiff.

8. As per the plaint averments, the suit property was purchased by the deceased plaintiff Vanitha from one Mahallingam under a sale deed dated 06.07.2005. The said sale deed in favour of the deceased plaintiff has been marked as Ex.A1. The Patta issued to