13.The entire dispute revolves around the identity of the predecessors in title Govindasamy. The case of the defendant is that Govindasamy referred to in the Chitta and Adangal is one Arachi Govindasamy and not Govindasamy, who has been shown as the father of Asokan, vendor of the plaintiff. The trial Court in Paragraph 30 has traced the title of the defendant to the suit property. The Courts below have also taken note of the fact that under Ex.B.16, partition had been effected in the family of the plaintiff's vendor. Further, this partition took place on 29.07.1975, however, the suit property is not shown in the partition. If really, the suit property belonged to Govindasamy then under Ex.B.16, his legal representatives would have not definitely partitioned the property. That apart, the defendants have let in convincing the evidence to show that Govindasamy referred to in the Chitta and Adangal is one Arachi Govindasamy and not Govindasamy, the father of the plaintiff's vendor. Both the Courts below have in great details appreciated the evidence on record. Once it is held that the properties belong to the defendant's vendor, it is immaterial as to whether the Sale Deed is anterior or posterior to the Sale Deed of the defendant. Therefore, the Questions of Law is answered against the appellant. The additional documents that are sought to be produced are subsequent to the Judgment in O.S.No.379 of 1999. Therefore, no exception can be taken to the Judgment and Decree under Appeal.
