8.The learned counsel for the appellants contended that the suit schedule property originally belonged to one Kuppan Samban. He died leaving behind his three sons namely Raman, Alagumalai and Muthukaruppan who partitioned the property among themselves. As per the said partition, the suit A schedule property was allotted to the share of Raman having an extent of 54 ½ cents in Survey No.4 and suit B schedule property was allotted to the share of Alagumalai having an extent of 54 ½ cents in the same survey number. The brothers Raman and Alagumalai have executed a registered othi deed in favour of one Chellathayammal under Exhibits A2 and A4 on 24.03.1967. The said mortgage have been redeemed in the year 1971 which is reflected in the endorsement made in Exhibits A2 and A4. The learned counsel further contended that the brothers Raman and Alagumalai have executed a registered sale deed under Exhibits A1 and A3 on 24.03.1970 in favour of the plaintiff each for an extent of 54 ½ cents. According to the learned counsel of the appellants, the plaintiff had mutated the revenue records and is in enjoyment of the suit schedule property. But in the year 1991, the plaintiff's son was implicated in a murder case and she was forced to be away from the Town. During the said period, one Ramasamy, S/o.Alagumalai had got his name inserted into the patta that was standing solely in the name of Kuppan Samban. Based upon the said joint patta, the said Ramasamy had executed a registered sale deed under Exhibit B1 on 15.03.1991 in favour of the defendant. Based upon the said sale deeds, the defendant had started mutation of the revenue records in his name and attempted to disturb possession of the plaintiff. The learned counsel for the appellants further contended that the First Appellate Court having arrived at a finding that the plaintiff is the absolute owner of the suit schedule property on the basis of Exhibits A1 and A2, ought to have decreed the suit as prayed for. The learned counsel further contended that the defendant has not produced any document with regard to the ownership of Ramasamy except joint patta under Exhibit B2 along with Kuppan Samban. The defendant has not produced any document that is anterior to Exhibit B2 dated 01.06.1989. Except a vague plea that the suit schedule property is the ancestral property of Ramasamy, no other registered document or revenue records has been produced to establish the title or possession of the said Ramasamy or his father Alagumalai. When the defendant has not established his title, the First Appellate Court ought not to have excluded the extent purchased by the first
