the first defendant in favour of the plaintiffs by way of Ex.A1 sale transaction, without any basis, the defendants have agreed that they would pay the plaintiffs a sum of Rs.41,625/- towards the value of 8 cents of land with reference to which the plaintiffs are complaining of shortage. In this connection, in paragraph 6 of the written statement, the defendants have clearly admitted that they are ready to pay the sale consideration of Rs.41,625/- to the plaintiffs or in the Court for the shortage of 8 cents of land covered under Ex.A1 sale transaction. If really the defendants are the owners of the 10 cents of land, there is no need for the defendants to come forward and deposit the abovesaid sum in favour of the plaintiff for the shortage of 8 cents of land qua the property sold by them under Ex.A1 sale transaction. The contention of the defendants' counsel that the plaintiffs have failed to establish that the defendants are not the owners of the 10 cents of land, as such, cannot be accepted, particularly, when the sale transaction marked as Ex.A1 has been executed by the first defendant in favour of the plaintiffs purporting to be the owner of the 10 cents of land in R.S.No.351/9C. In such view of the matter, it is for the defendants to establish that the extent of 10 cents of land lie on the ground comprised in R.S.No.351/9C and on the other hand, as rightly found by the first appellate Court, other than marking the settlement deed and the patta as Exs.B1 and B2, there is no proof placed on the part of the defendants, as such, for determining convincingly that they have title to the extent of 10 cents of land in R.S.No.351/9C. As abovenoted, there is no material proof on the part of the defendants to establish that the extent of 10 cents of land lie on ground after the alienation made by the first defendant in favour of Vijayakumar and Pichaikari as put forth in the written statement. Furthermore, as rightly pointed out by the first appellate Court, if the defendants are sure that they are the owners of the 10 cents of lands covered under Ex.A1 sale transaction, there is no need on the part of the defendants to come forward and pay the sum of Rs.41,625/- and as could be seen from the materials placed on record, the defendants are also found to have deposited a sum of Rs.43,000/- in the Court. Therefore, the abovesaid conduct of the defendants would only go to disclose that inasmuch as they did not have the title in respect of the extent of 8 cents of land as put forth by them and suppressing the same, they had alienated 10 cents of land in favour of the plaintiff under Ex.A1 sale transaction and when as per the terms contained in Ex.A1 transaction, the defendants have also made themselves liable to compensate the plaintiffs for any defective title in the property conveyed under the same, accordingly, the plaintiff had measured the property purchased and noting that the defendants are not the owners of the entire extent of the 10 cents of lands and they are the owners of 2 cents of land alone, hence been necessitated to institute the
