9.Both the courts below have in their judgment discussed the nature of the transactions and the nature of the documents under which the plaintiff became entitled to the suit items 3 to 5 and the plaintiff parted with her title in respect of portion of the suit item 3 to 5 in favour of first defendant and one Thagapillai and as to how the first defendant has on the strength of the sale in his favour by the plaintiff and by Thagapillai become entitled to the portion of the property in suit items 3 to 5 and have rightly found that the plaintiff and defendants are entitled to 7/16 and 9/16 shares respectively in the suit items 3 to 5 in S.No.113/12 which is subsequently sub divided as 113/12, 113/12b and 113/12C. While Well in S.No.113/12, is shown as item No.5 and the lands surrounding the same in sub division Nos.113/12b and 113/12C are described as suit items 3 and 4. Both the courts below have also discussed in detail regarding the right of the parties in respect of the entire 19cents comprised in composite S.No.113/12. Having held so, both the courts below declared the right of the plaintiff to that extent, with liberty given to the plaintiff to go for partition of his share so declared and have dismissed the suit in respect of suit items 3 to 5. As rightly argued by the learned counsel for the appellant, the judgment and decree of the Courts below is nothing but perverse and warrants interference by this Court to that extent. The substantial questions of law 1 to 3 are dismissed as given up and the additional substantial question of law is accordingly answered in favour of the plaintiff.
