had examined the sixth defendant namely Tmt.Indira Ammal as D.W.1 who had executed Ex.B-8, in whose name Ex.B7 patta stands. Furthermore, as per Ex.B8 Rectification deed was executed by T.S.Gopal in favour of Munusamy Reddy coupled with Ex.B2. It appears that defendants' purchase was duly reflected by the sale deed along with the revenue record-Ex.B7. For the reasons best known, the original sale deed of the sale effected in favour of the plaintiff was not marked before the trial Court. Ex.A1 is only a certified copy and furthermore, the vendor of the plaintiff or his wife was not examined as to the actual extent sold in favour of the plaintiff also assumes significance. Hence, basing reliance on the non-examination of the Dhamayanthi Ammal, the wife of the vendor of the plaintiff and also as no linear measurement with regard to alleged encroached area measuring 535 sq.ft, both the Courts below have rightly come to the conclusion that the plaintiff is not proved his title to the suit property and not proved his possession, but on the contrary the first defendant has proved his title to her land in occupation. Thus, the judgment and decree granted by both the Courts below do not suffer from any irregularity or illegality warranting interference at this appellate stage and hence, both the Substantial questions of Law do not arise on the factual background of this case.
