plaintiff. Now, according to the plaintiff, Madurambal had sold the suit property in his favour by way of the registered sale deed dated 11.04.2000, which document has come to be marked as Ex.A6. In the abovesaid sale deed, madurambal claims title to the suit property on the footing that she had been issued the patta in respect of the property comprised therein. However, to evidence the same, the plaintiff has not endeavoured to produce the said patta other than Ex.A2 thoraya patta. When thoraya patta cannot, at all, be relied for any purpose, both with reference to the title as well as the possession, it is found that without any basis Madurambal has claimed to have been issued patta in respect of the suit property in the sale deed marked as Ex.A6. In addition to that, when it is not the case of the plaintiff that the house structure put up in the suit property had completely been dilapidated and the suit property remained only a vacant site at the time of the execution of Ex.A6 sale deed and when according to the plaintiff, Madurambal had been enjoying the suit property even after the execution of Ex.A6 sale deed in his favour along with the plaintiff, if really, Madurambal had conveyed the suit property in favour of the plaintiff and been enjoying the same by putting up the house structure and if the house structure had been assessed in her name, etc., while conveying the property in favour of the plaintiff under Ex.A6 sale deed, Madurambal would have disclosed about the existence of the super structure in the said document, on the other hand, the document recites that by way of the same, Madurambal had conveyed only the vacant site and not consisting of any super structure as such. In such view of the matter, as rightly determined by the first appellate court, when the suit property has been described only as a vacant site by Madurambal in Ex.A6, to say that she had put up the house structure in the suit property and the same had been assessed in her name and she had been enjoying the same by paying the house tax, electricity bills, etc., and when the documents projected in connection with the same had not been correlated by the plaintiff that the same pertains to the suit property as such, in all, it is seen that when the possession and enjoyment of the suit property by Govinda Raju and Madurambal has not been established clearly by the plaintiff, as determined by the first appellate court and when under Ex.A6, only a vacant site is found to have been conveyed by Madurambal in favour of the plaintiff and when Madurambal had not been shown to be competent to convey the suit property in favour of the plaintiff by way of Ex.A6 sale deed as per law, it is found that based on Ex.A6 sale deed also, we cannot hold that the plaintiff is in the legal possession and enjoyment of the suit property.
