title of the suit properties from the lawful owner under Ex.B8
sale deed and furthermore, when the plaintiff has produced Ex.B1
kist receipt dated 02.03.1990 evidencing his vendor's possession
and enjoyment of the suit properties and the adangal extract
Ex.B2 evidencing that the suit properties are recorded in the
adangal extract only in the name of the plaintiff's vendor for
the period from 1984-89 and furthermore when the plaintiff and
his vendor have also marked the miscellaneous receipts issued by
the Executive Officer, Town Panchayat, Mecheri, marked as Exs.B10
to B14 qua the suit properties and in continuation of the same,
the plaintiff and his vendor have also marked various tax
receipts marked as Exs.B15 to B22, though the abovesaid receipts
pertain to the period after the institution of the suit and
further when the plaintiff and his vendor have also marked the
house tax and water tax receipts marked as Exs.B62 to B74 and the
other receipts marked as Exs. B75 to B89, though the abovesaid
documents are found to have emanated after the institution of the
suit, as rightly contended by the plaintiff's counsel,
considering the abovesaid documents in toto, when the plaintiff
and his vendor have been able to substantiate their possession
and enjoyment of the suit properties prior to the institution of
the suit by marking the kist receipt and adangal extract marked
as Exs.B1 and B2 and the plaintiff having purchased the suit
properties from his vendor only on 24.05.1995 and immediately
thereafter he had chosen to lay the suit in O.S.No.422/95 on
28.06.1995 i.e. within one month from the date of the sale, the
plaintiff would be expected to be only in the possession and
enjoyment of the suit properties pursuant to the sale i.e. after
Ex.B8 sale transaction and therefore, when the plaintiff and his
vendor had placed acceptable and reliable documents evidencing
their lawful possession and enjoyment of the suit priorities
prior to the institution of the present suit laid by the
plaintiff as well as after the institution of the suit
continuously and though the plaintiff in the course of evidence
is unable to name the occupants of the suit properties, moreso
merely because the occupants of the suit properties had obtained
some service connection in their names, by itself, would not lead
to the conclusion that they had obtained the service connections
in their names legally. When, as above pointed out, the courts
below having declared that it is only the plaintiff who has title
to the suit property based on Ex.B8 sale deed and that he had
validly purchased the same from his vendor Govindan and when the
courts below have further held that the claim of title to the
