plaintiffs' claim title, possession and enjoyment of the above said described suit property in the plaint. For the same, the plaintiffs rely upon the two sale deeds namely Exs.A1 and A2. According to the plaintiffs that they had purchased the suit property as above stated, from their vendor Thirupathy as per the sale deed dated 27.01.1981 marked as Ex.A2 and further according to them, their vendor Thirupathy had puchased the suit property as above stated from his vendor Kannan as per sale deed dated 06.10.1971, marked as Ex.A1 and as rightly found by the trial court, on a perusal of Exs.A1 and A2, it is found that under the same in the suit survey number, within specific boundaries, only a specific extent of 0.75 cents have been purchased and therefore to state that an extent of 0.92 cents had been purchased under the above said sale deeds by the respective parties as such cannot be accepted in any manner. According to the plaintiffs, their vendor derived the title to the suit property under Ex.A1 from Kannan who has been examined as D.W.3. Further, according to the plaintiffs, Kannan had been granted patta by the settlement Tahsildar in respect of the suit property. On the other hand, Kannan examined as D.W.3 had stated that he has been granted patta only in respect of 75 cents in the suit survey number and not 92 cents and accordingly he had alienated only the above said extent to Thirupathy by way Ex.A1 and despite, cross examination nothing has been culled out from him to dis-believe his above said version. Therefore, as per the version of the plaintiffs' predecessor in title D.W.3, it is seen that only 75 cents in the said suit survey number had been allotted to him and therefore to say that the plaintiffs and their vendor had derived title to the extent of 92 cents in the suit survey number from D.W.3 as such cannot be readily accepted. Further, the patta said to have been issued in favour of D.W3 in respect of the suit property has not been filed. No reason is forthcoming with reference to the same. That apart a reading of Exs.A1 and A2 would go to show that only a specific extent comprised within the specific boundaries mentioned therein is stated and not a rough extent and on the other hand the extent comprised within the specific boundaries is stated to be in particular as only 75 cents. Despite the above position, no steps have been taken by the plaintiffs to measure the suit property though a Commission with the aid of a surveyor to evidence as to the actual extent available on ground within the boundaries described in the plaint schedule. For the same, no plausible explanation is forthcoming on the part of the plaintiffs. The Kist receipts marked on behalf of the plaintiffs do not in any manner advance their case, as by way of the same, it cannot be determined that they correspond to an extent of 92 cents in the said survey number. The other documents projected by the plaintiffs for upholding their case as Adangal extracts marked as Exs.A4 and A8, as rightly found by the trial court, a perusal of Ex.A4 Adangal Extract would go
