of land sold by Puliyanaika in favour of Brahmachari is justified or not. I have also carefully considered the finding recorded by the trial court with regard to the judgment and decree passed in OS No.56/2007, though the plaintiffs herein are not parties of the said suit, however, pursuant to the judgment and decree passed in the said compromise decree, mutation entries have been entered in the name of respective parties i.e. Rangaswamy and his sisterVaralaxmi and also in view of the Sale Deed dated 23.04.1960-Ex.D1, which would clearly establish the fact that Puliyanaika had sold an extent of 9 acre of land in favour of Bramhachari and in that view of the matter, though there is dispute with regard to the extent of land, whether it is 8 acre, 23 gunta or the 5 to 6 acre of land as stated above, in that connection, I have carefully considered the finding recorded by the trial court at paragraphs 17 and 18 of the judgment would establish the fact that the finding recorded by the trial court requires to be affirmed in this appeal. Apart from this, I have also carefully considered Ex.P3-sale deed dated 01.05.1963, wherein, perusal of the sale deed of Kambanna and
