10.On the basis of the oral and documentary evidence, by judgment dated 23.12.1993, the learned Additional District Munsif, Tindivanam, found that the sale deed in favour of Vellaiya Kounder in Ex.B2 dated 22.08.1962 was a true and valid document. It was also found that PW2, Balaraman had admitted mortgaging the property in favour of Vellaiya Kounder by a registered document dated 05.09.1960. It was also found that the sale deed in favour of Ramaiya Kounder in Ex.B9 dated 03.07.1972 was also a true and valid document. This finding was based on the evidence of DW4 Krishnan who was the attesting witness. Thereafter, the sale deed in favour of the first defendant executed on 17.05.1976 under Ex.B10 by Ramaiya Kounder was also found to be a true and valid document. It was found that the property thus conveyed was 15 cents out of 30 cents in S.No.32/2. The first defendant had also, to substantiate his evidence, examined PW2, PW3 and PW4. On the other hand, it was found with respect to the sale deed in favour of the plaintiff that since PW2 Balaraman had admitted that he had executed sale deed on 22.08.1962 for an extent of 15 cents, he could not have executed the sale deed in favour of the plaintiff. It was also found that PW2 and PW3 had given contrary evidence with respect to discharge of mortgage. In Ex.A1, sale deed it was found that apart from other properties, the suit property had been mentioned. There were also discrepancies in the evidence adduced by the witnesses of the plaintiff. It was also found that in Ex.A2, the extent of land mentioned was 7½ cents in S.No.32/2. No explanation had been given as to how this land extended to 15 cents subsequently. Therefore, it was found that the sale deed in favour of the plaintiff cannot be accepted. Holding as above, the learned Additional District Munsif, Tindivanam, dismissed the suit.
