purchased by the defendant wherein they are residing, remaining extent in S.No. 14-4A, G, F are with the other defendants. Further, the learned counsel for the plaintiffs/respondents herein raised objection stating that they are having documents which was marked as Ex.A14 it was pertaining to the year of 1372-1393 but extent marked as one acre 61 cents in the name of Dhanappa Padaychi. As sale deeds stands in the name of the defendants for 1.07 acres in S.No. 14-4 it was not been cancelled by any of the Court of law the plaintiff also not sought any other relief. The learned counsel for the appellants/defendants submitted that there is no necessity to cancel the sale deed but they are claiming title based on the patta and also disputing the title of the defendants hence they should have sought relief of declaration but they failed. On seeing the documents as well as Advocate commissioner report, which clearly shows that the first appellate court granted relief in favour of respondent/plaitiffs based on the patta. On seeing the entire records, in the year 1948, the Manrol padayachi/husband of third defendant purchased an extent of 1.07 cents in the suit property, as on date defendants/appellants herein having better title than the plaintiff, by relying the patta , revenue records they cogently proved that they are in continuous possession and enjoyment of the suit property. Adangal also shows that 8
