lease arrangement with Radhakrishnan in the proceedings marked as Ex.A5 and thus it is found that as put forth by the defendant, the suit property had been in the possession of the defendant's family of a larger extent, namely 2.50 acres in the suit survey number. Now according to the defendant, on the basis of the partition arrangement effected between him and his brother, his brother was allotted 1.50 acres and he had been alloted 1.00 acres in the suit survey number and in this connection, reliance is placed upon Ex.B7 partition chit by the defendant. However, Ex.B7 chit is not a registered instrument, in such view of the matter, on the basis of the same, the defendant cannot be allowed to claim any title or interest over the suit property as such. All the more, considering the kists receipts projected by the defendant and when it is seen that the defendant's father Swaminathan was also paying the kists in respect of the suit property to the extent covered under survey number 174/3 comprised in patta No.815 and with reference to the same, as the plaintiffs have not come forward with any explanation and considering the lease arrangement effected between the plaintiffs' father and the defendant's brother Radhakrishnan under Ex.A5 proceedings, it is found that the total extent available in the suit survey number has been only in the possession of the defendant's family. No doubt, by way of Ex.A6 proceedings, it is found that an extent of 0.65.0 ares in the suit survey number had been agreed to be continued on lease arrangement in favour of Radhakrishnan and on a combined reading of Exs.A5 and A6 proceedings and when it is seen that the defendant's father and the defendant are also found to be in the possession and enjoyment of the extent comprised in suit survey number and when the plaintiffs have miserably failed to establish that the defendant had encroached into the suit property as put forth by them and as rightly determined by the first appellate court, if really the defendant had unlawfully encroached into the suit property, the plaintiffs would have instituted proper criminal action against the defendant and when there is no material on the part of the plaintiffs with reference to the same and when according to the defendant by way of the family partition chit, he had been allowed to continue the enjoyment of an extent of 1.00 acres in the suit survey number inclusive of the suit property and the remaining extent of 1.50 acres had been in the possession and enjoyment of his brother Radhakrishnan and in particular, when there is no material on the part of the plaintiffs that they had lawfully recovered the possession of the suit property in particular from Radhakrishnan or from the defendant's family as such, in such view of the matter, as rightly found and determined by the first appellate court, though the defendant's case could not be accepted based on Ex.B7 partition chit, however, when considering the total materials available on record cumulatively, it is found that the suit property, from the origin, had been only in the enjoyment of the
