12.Per contra, the plaintiff during the course of evidence, has projected a new case as if the suit property originally belonged to one Haribudhri. During the course of evidence the plaintiff would state that Arumugam is the son of his paternal grandfather Haribudhri and Arumugam had two sons and one daughter namely Gurusamy, Duraisamy and Saradhammal and the suit property stood in the name of Haribudhri and Haribudhri had four daughters and accordingly he had purchased the suit property from the daughters of Haribudhri. However there is no material placed on record by the plaintiff to evidence that the suit property originally stood in the name of Haribudhri and the same had been succeeded by his daughters. When even according to the abovesaid case projected by the plaintiff, during the course of evidence that Haribudhri had a son by name Arumugam and daughters, it does not stand to reason as to how come his daughters alone had acquired title to the suit property after Haribudhri. The plaintiff has not come forward as to how come Arumugam had been deprived of his claim of right or title to the suit property as the legal heir of Haribudhri. Furthermore, in Ex.A1 sale deed nothing has been averred that the plaintiff's vendors had acquired title to the suit property through Haribudhri or through the brothers of Haribudhri. In such view of the matter, when according to the plaintiff, the suit property originally belonged to one Thavamani ammal and her family members and when the plaintiff has not come forward as to how Thavamani ammal and her family members had acquired title to the suit property and when there is no material to hold that the suit property originally belonged to Haribudhri and when there is no material to hold that Haribudhri or his daughters had been in the possession and enjoyment of the suit property as their own, in such view of the matter, the first appellate court is found to be wholly justified in not accepting Ex.A1 sale transaction for declaring the claim of title of the plaintiff in respect of the suit property. The chitta projected by the plaintiff marked as Ex.A2 go to disclose that the suit property stands in the name of Duraisamy, S/o Arumugam under the Patta No.250. The Kist receipts projected by the plaintiff marked as Exs.A7 to A35 stand in the name of his father Rengasamy Udaiyar and under the patta No.266 and the said patta does not relate to the suit property . No doubt Exs. A3 to A6 and A36 Kist receipts stand in the name of the plaintiff. However, when the plaintiff has miserably failed to establish his vendors' claim of title to the suit property, in such view of the matter, the claim of the plaintiff that he had acquired a valid title to the suit property based on the sale deed executed by his alleged vendors cannot be countenanced and rightly discountenanced by the first appellate court.
