11.As regards the second item of the suit properties, it is the case of the defendants that the same had been purchased by the third defendant. In this connection, the sale deed dated 29.11.1968 has been marked as Ex.B1. However, when the plaintiff has thrown a challenge to Ex.B1 even then, to substantiate the truth and authenticity of Ex.B1, the third defendant has himself not cared to enter into the box and depose about the above said sale transaction. None of the persons associated with Ex.B1 has been examined. Further the defendants have not also established that the vendor of the third defendant had the legal competency to convey the second item of the suit properties in favour of the third defendant by way of Ex.B1. Further, no material has also been placed to hold that pursuant to Ex.B1, it is only the third defendant had been in possession and enjoyment of the second item of the suit properties by obtaining patta, chitta, paying Kist etc., Accordingly, the Courts below have also rightly disbelieved the above defence version and there is no material placed in this second appeal to warrant any interference with reference to the same. Resultantly, it is to be held that as admitted by D.W.1 above referred to and in the light of Ex.A1, it is seen that Srinivasalu Naidu had purchased the second item of the suit properties and also in the court auction sale during 1969, as reflected in Ex.A1 and accordingly the third defendant or as the case may be the defendants are unable to establish that the third defendant had legally purchased the said item of the suit properties and that the vendor namely Ayyavu had the legal competency to sell the same in favour of the third defendant under Ex.B1. Thus, it has to be held that it is only Srinivasalu Naidu and thereafter the plaintiff who had been exercising absolute ownership, possession and enjoyment of all the items of the suit properties from 1969 onwards.
