since the schedule is not clear. According to the first respondent, “A” schedule property ad-measuring 900 sq.ft in Old T.S.No.409, T.S.No.151, S.F.Nos. 85/1A and 85/2A, 50 ft East to West * 18¾ North to South = 937.5 sq.ft. The total extent of “B” schedule property is ad-measuring 765 sq.ft in Old T.S.No.409, T.S.No.151, S.F.Nos.85/1A and 84/2A, 45 ft East to West * 17 ft North to South = 765 sq.ft. According to the first respondent, one Lakshmiammal had purchased the property comprised in T.S.No.409 corresponding S.F.No.85/1A and 85/2A, ad-measuring 32 ft East to West * 25 ft North to South= 800 sq.ft by a registered sale deed dated 18.06.1958, vide Document No.2809 of 1958, which was marked as Ex.A2. However, allegedly the first respondent had purchased a property to an extent of 45 ft East to West * 17 ft North to South = 765 sq.ft only in T.S.No.409 corresponding to S.F.Nos.85/1A and 84/2A, by a registered sale deed dated 25.08.1986, vide Document No.2275 of 1986, which was marked as Ex.A3. Therefore, the first respondent had purchased only 765 sq.ft in Ex.A3 out of 800 sq.ft, which was marked as Ex.A2 in T.S.No.409 corresponding to S.F.Nos.85/1A and 84/2A. But the respondent had totally given the property covered under Ex.A2 as “A” schedule property and the property covered under Ex.A3 as “B” schedule property, as if she had purchased both the items. Even from Exs.A2 and A3, the first respondent had purchased only 765 sq.ft. Therefore, the first respondent https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis Page 6 of 21
