including properties that were not even belonging to the appellants. It is an admitted fact that the property was originally belonged to Pandara Gounder and later, it devolved upon P.Bommaya Gounder. However, the partition deed dated 05.10.1992, which is also unregistered, does not even indicate as to how the parties to the said partition deed traced title or relationship with the original owner/Pandara Gounder. Yet another argument is that the disputed property in survey No.1241/2 is of an extent of 1.42 Acres and in survey No.1241/1 was 3.32 Acres, in all 4.74 Acres, which was alone purchased by the appellants and there are several other owners in respect of the remaining lands, especially, in the light of the description of the property itself to be reflected as being more than 11 Acres. Arguments were also directed against the findings of the first appellate Court holding that the suit is in time, especially, with respect to the declaratory relief to challenge the sale deed. I would take up the issue of limitation first, since, if the said issue of limitation is held in favour of the appellants, then it may have a serious impact with regard to the other findings rendered by the first appellate Court. Admittedly, the trial Court disbelieved the evidence on the side of the plaintiffs in O.S.No.140 of 2011 holding that the ipse dixit evidence of the power
