Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

19. The appellant/plaintiff has not produced any title deed of Solai Naicker. On the other hand, he has produced a certified copy of the sale deed dated 15.07.1932 in the name of Sandyammal which was executed pursuant to a Court sale made in E.P.No.1033 of 1931 on the file of the District Munsif, Chengalpet. The same has been marked as Ex.A9. According to the appellant/plaintiff, the property sold under Ex.A9 is the property situated on the west of the plaint 'B' schedule property and the 'B' schedule property has been referred to as the property of Solai Naicker in the said sale deed. The second respondent/second defendant, who figured as the sole witness on the side of the defendants, would state in her evidence that the property described as 'B' schedule in the plaint was purchased by Sandyammal under the said sale deed. However, she would deny the fact that property of Solai Naicker has been shown as the eastern boundary of the said property purchased under the original of Ex.A9. At the same time, she would plead ignorance as to which property has been shown as eastern boundary of the property conveyed under Ex.A9 in favour of Sandyammal. It is not the case of the respondents/defendants that there is yet another property which is situated on the east of the plaint 'B' schedule property and that was referred as Solai Naicker's property in Ex.A9. Ex.A9 is the certified copy of a sale deed dated 15.07.1932, an ancient document. The property purchased by Sandyammal under the said sale deed shows the property of Solai Naicker as its eastern boundary.