of title has been held to be an invalid or void document and it could therefore be seen that in O.S.65/94, the plaintiff's title deed has been declared to be an invalid document. Admittedly, the plaintiff is not a party to O.S.No.65/94. Even then, it is seen from the admitted case of both parties, that the plaintiff stood as a witness for the defendant viz., Commissioner of Marakkanam Panchayat Union in O.S.No.65/94. It could therefore be seen that he should have been aware as to why he had been called for in the above suit as a witness and particularly, when his title deed is being questioned in the same. Even as per the admitted case of the plaintiff, he had come to know about the judgment and decree passed in the above suit dated 31.08.2001. At least, on perusing the same, the plaintiff should have taken adequate steps to challenge the same in the manner known to law. However, the plaintiff has not challenged the same and on the other hand has laid the present suit seeking for the cancellation of the judgment and decree passed in O.S.No.65/94 as not binding upon the plaintiff in so far as the suit property is concerned. However, when the plaintiff has not preferred any appeal after coming to know of the judgment and decree rendered in O.S.No.65/94 in the manner known to law and when it has also not been established that the plaintiff as such had purchased the suit property inclusive of 0.25 cents said to have been gifted by him to the Commissioner of Marakkanam Panchayat Union, under Ex.A1 and when it is the admitted case of the plaintiff that he had purchased only undivided share in survey no.22/2 under Ex.A1, the case of the plaintiff that the judgment and decree passed in O.S.No.65/94 should be cancelled as regards the suit property, as such cannot be accepted. In the plaint, there is no specific pleadings as to on what basis the plaintiff claims the cancellation of the judgment and decree passed in O.S.No.65/1994. According to the plaintiff, inasmuch as the Commissioner of Marakkanam Panchayat Union had not contested the above said suit seriously and not evinced any interest as regards the outcome of the said suit, according to the plaintiff, the relief of cancellation sought for by him should be granted. However, as rightly put forth by the defendant's counsel, the relief of cancellation sought for by the plaintiff in the suit cannot be accepted, when no material is placed by the plaintiff to show that the Commissioner of Marakkanam Panchayat Union had not contested the above suit 'tooth and nail' or seriously as now put forth by the plaintiff. Further the Commissioner, Marakkanam Panchayat Union has not been added as a party in the present suit.
