16.It is the further case of the plaintiff that as per the SLR Register, one Pandi, vendor of the plaintiff is in possession of the suit schedule property. In this regard, P.W.1 and P.W.2 have specifically stated in their evidence that the partition was effected in respect to the suit schedule property in between the vendor of the plaintiff and Rajamani. But in order to prove the same, no partition deed has been marked on the side of the plaintiff, which will probabilise and create a doubt whether the vendor is having the better title. On the side of the defendant, the mortgage deed executed by the defendant in favour of one Ayyanar dated 03.02.2004 was marked as Ex.B.7. The said document establishes that on 03.12.2004 the defendant is in possession and enjoyment of the suit schedule property. Except those documents, in order to prove the possession, on the side of the plaintiff no document was exhibited. In fact Ex.X.1 to Ex.X.4, which are the documents maintained in the revenue department, will clearly expose that the suit schedule property is the Government Poromboke. So, without any document in respect to the title, the sale made by the vendor of the plaintiff is questionable. Accordingly, the purchase made by the plaintiff from one Pandi, did not confer any title in favour of the plaintiff.
