(1.) The plaintiff, in a suit for declaration of title and recovery of possession of the plaint schedule mentioned properties, aggrieved over the reversal of the judgment by the first appellate court, has brought forth this second appeal.
(2.) The following short facts are noticed in the pleadings of the parties. The property described in Schedule 'A' herein is the Eastern part of the property described in Schedule 'B' herein situated in Rajunaickenpatti, Mallipudur. 'B' schedule came to be owned jointly by the first defendant and her sister one Veerammal by virtue of provision in a registered deed of partition dated 1.9.1945. Veerammal and the first defendant divided the said property orally and thereafter the eastern moiety of B schedule property became the exclusive property of Veerammal and the western part of B schedule property became the exclusive property of the first defendant. On 8.10.1973, Veerammal settled the eastern moiety of the property described in schedule B in favour of the plaintiff by way of a registered deed of settlement. The said eastern part of B schedule is separately described in schedule A and is the subject matter of the suit. The plaintiff is in enjoyment of the property by paying property tax on the A schedule property. The first defendant has executed registered deed of sale in favour of the second defendant on 22.11.1985 conveying D.No.80 to the second defendant. The correct eastern boundary for D.No.80 should be the plaintiff's property, but the document wrongly mentions eastern boundary as street. Taking advantage of the wrong western and eastern boundary recitals for D.No.80 conveyed under sale deed dated 22.11.1985 in his favour, the second defendant has been attempting to take forcible possession of the plaintiff's property described in Schedule A. Hence, there arose a necessity for filing the suit for declaration and to restrain the second defendant from interfering in the plaintiff's peaceful possession and enjoyment of the property, in question.
(3.) The defendants resisted the suit stating that the plaintiff's case is a false one; that it is an admitted position that the first defendant Venkittammal and Veerammal are sisters; that the first defendant and Veerammal, on the death of their parents, divided the suit property orally; that the suit property was allotted to the first defendant prior to 3.3.1972; that the first defendant on 22.11.1985 executed a sale deed in favour of the second defendant; that the suit property was in possession of the second defendant; that the defendants present Door number is 79; that at the time of execution of the sale deed, the door number is 80; that it is not correct to state that the present door number of the suit property is 56; that the defendant has perfected title by adverse possession and that the suit has got to be dismissed.