Judgment :- Appeal filed against the Judgment and Decree dated 27.09.2000 passed in A.S.No.77/2000 by the VII Addl. Judge, City Civil Court, Chennai, confirming the Judgment and Decree of the II Asst. Judge, City Civil Court, Chennai dated 25.01.2000 in O.S.No.4142/1995.) This second appeal arises out of the concurrent Judgment and Decree passed in A.S.No.77/2000 by the VII Additional Judge, City Civil Court, Chennai, confirming the Judgment and Decree of the II Assistant Judge, City Civil Court, Chennai in O.S.No.4142/1995, dated 25.01.2000, decreeing the Plaintiff's suit for declaration and the recovery of possession. Unsuccessful sixth Defendant is the Appellant. For convenience, the parties are referred in their original rank in the suit. 2.Plaintiff and the Defendants are related as under:- Velanganni Ammal (died on 29.11.1985) | | ------------------------------------------ | | | | Upakara Mariammal D-1 Theresa = Francis D-2 = Velankanni | | | | | Arokiadas (Plaintiff) | | -------------------------------------------------- | | | | | | | | | | Godwin Joseph Avin Joseph Mavin Joseph Lawrence | (D-3) (D-4) (D-5) (D-6) | | | Sagaya Mary (D-7) The suit property relates to Premises No.10, Bentlemen Street, Kasimedu, Thondiarpet, bearing O.S.2805 New Survey No.3475, Subdivision No.24. 3.The dispute between the parties arise on the following common points:- The Plaintiff's grandmother was a tenant of the land under M/s.Uthiriyanadhan, Upakaramari Ammal and Sowri Ammal. Velanganni Ammal put up a superstructure over the land. When the landlords filed Ejectment Suit No.96/1976 against Velanganni Ammal, grandmother of the Plaintiff, she filed MP No.476/1977 under Section 9 of the City Tenants' Protection Act, to purchase the land. The said application was allowed on 28.07.1979 (Ex.A.1) fixing the compensation at Rs.2,330/-. Case of the Plaintiff is that as per the order of the Court, Velanganni Ammal paid the cost of the land and got the Sale Deed Ex.A-2 (28.06.1985) from the landlords. Velanganni Ammal became the absolute owner of both the land and the superstructure. By a Will dated 4.7.1984, Velanganni Ammal bequeathed the suit property in favour of the Plaintiff who is her grandson. The said Will was duly probated on 27.1.1988 in O.P.No.517/1987. Further case of the Plaintiff is that the Defendants were only permissive occupiers under Velanganni Ammal. Even during the life time of Velanganni Ammal, she had issued Ex.A-4 notice to the Defendants calling upon them to vacate and hand over vacant possession. The said Will was duly probated on 27.1.1988 in O.P.No.517/1987. Further case of the Plaintiff is that the Defendants were only permissive occupiers under Velanganni Ammal. Even during the life time of Velanganni Ammal, she had issued Ex.A-4 notice to the Defendants calling upon them to vacate and hand over vacant possession. The Defendants have issued Reply Notice containing false and frivolous allegations. The Plaintiff had also issued Ex.A-6 Notice (24.07.1988) calling upon the Defendants to vacate and hand over vacant possession of the suit premises. But the Defendants failed to comply with the Plaintiff's demand. Hence the Plaintiff has filed the suit for declaration and for delivery of vacant possession. 4.D-1 to D-5 and D-7 remained exparte. Only D-6/ Appellant has contested the suit. Case of D-6 is that Velanganni Ammal had not paid the amount before the stipulated date and hence, automatically her application under Section 9 of the City Tenants' Protection Act would stand dismissed. Under those circumstances, the owners of the land viz., Uthiriyanadhan, Upakaramari and Sowri ammal have sold to D-1 under Ex.B-1 Sale Deed (13.12.1984). Thus, Ex.B-1 Sale Deed is valid in law, which is for valuable consideration. Possession of the suit property is admittedly with D-1, D-2 to D-5 and D-7. D-2 to D-5 and D-7 have relinquished their interest in favour of D-6, after the death of D-1. On 28.06.1985, Uthiriyanadhan and others had no more interest in the suit property to convey to Velanganni Ammal. Hence Ex.A-1 is not a valid document in the eye of law. 5.On the above pleadings, seven issues were framed in the trial court. Upon consideration of the evidence, the trial court found that the landlords have executed Ex.A-2 Sale Deed to Velanganni Ammal and the landlords have no right to execute the sale deed to the first Defendant - Upakara Mariammal. Pointing out the earlier application filed by D-1 in I.A.No.1714/1976, seeking to implead her self and the dismissal of that application, the learned Assistant Judge has pointed out that D-1 Upakara Mariammal has no right or interest in the suit property. It was further held that on the basis of Ex.B-1, case of D-6 that the first Defendant paid the instalment amount to the landlords cannot be accepted. It was further held that on the basis of Ex.B-1, case of D-6 that the first Defendant paid the instalment amount to the landlords cannot be accepted. Pointing out that Velanganni Ammal herself had earlier sent Ex.A-4 notice, the Defendants' contention that Velanganni Ammal consented to Ex.B-1 Sale Deed was negatived by the trial court. Pointing out the non-examination of the vendors to prove Ex.B-1 lower court disbelieved the defence. As against the decreeing of the suit, D-6 has preferred the appeal in A.S.No.77/2000. First Appellate Court dismissed the appeal confirming the Judgment of the trial court. Pointing out that after the dismissal of the application in I.A.No.1714/1976, D-1 had not taken any further steps, the appellate Court held that Ex.B-1 - Sale Deed had been created to bolster the case of the Defendants. Holding that Velanganni Ammal had executed Ex.A-4-Will out of her free-will and volition, bequeathing the suit property to the Plaintiff, the Judgment and Decree of the trial court was confirmed. The appellate Court has also concurred with the findings of the Court below that Ex.B-1 was not been properly proved either by examining the vendors or by adducing evidence showing that D-1 had paid the instalment amount for purchase of the suit premises. 6.Aggrieved over the concurrent findings of the Courts below in decreeing the Plaintiff's suit, D-6 has preferred this appeal. The learned counsel for the Appellant has submitted that the purport of section 9 of the City Tenants' Protection Act has not been properly considered and the consequences of default in payment of instalments was not properly appreciated by the Courts below. The learned counsel for the Appellant has submitted that when Velanganni Ammal has not paid the instalment amount as per the order of the Court, her right to purchase the land under Section 9 of the City Tenants' Protection Act has been extinguished which was not properly appreciated by the Courts below. Drawing the attention of the Court to Ex.B-1, learned counsel for the Appellant has also submitted that when Ex.B-1 is ante dated (13.12.1984) prior to Ex.A-2 Sale Deed (28.06.1985); while so, the Courts below erred in saying that Ex.B-1 has been created by the Defendants. Submitting that the reasoning and findings of the Courts below suffer from serious and substantial error, the learned counsel for the Appellant prayed to set aside the Judgment and Decree of the Courts below. Submitting that the reasoning and findings of the Courts below suffer from serious and substantial error, the learned counsel for the Appellant prayed to set aside the Judgment and Decree of the Courts below. 7.Countering the arguments, the learned counsel for the Respondent/Plaintiff has submitted that the recitals in Ex.B-1 cannot be relied upon to show that money has been paid. Drawing the attention of the Court to Ex.A-8 - receipts for payment of instalment amount by Velanganni Ammal, the learned counsel for the Plaintiff has submitted that evidence has been produced showing payment of instalment amount by Velanganni Ammal. Reiterating the findings of the Courts below on behalf of the Plaintiff, it is further submitted that Ex.B-1 has not been properly proved and the Courts below have rightly held that Ex.B-1 is not a genuine document and cannot be acted upon to accept the defence plea. Much reliance has been placed upon the conduct of the first Defendant earlier in filing I.A.No.1714 /1976 which she did not pursue after its dismissal. It is further submitted that when the order in the ejectment suit in O.S.No.96/1976 was in favour of Velanganni Ammal, the Defendants were not right in obtaining Ex.B-1 - Sale Deed from the landlords and that the Courts below have rightly decreed the suit negativing the defence contention. 8.At the time when the second appeal was admitted, the following substantial questions of law were formulated : “1.Whether the Courts below are correct in holding that Ex.A-2 sale deed, dated 28.6.2985 obtained by the Plaintiff's grandmother is in accordance with the order of the Civil Court passed under Section 9 of the Tamil Nadu City Tenants' Protection Act in MP No.476/77 in suit NO.96/1976 marked as Ex.A-1 especially when there was no reference about the Civil Court order. The extent is not in accordance with the order given in the Civil Court and specifically stated that there was no tenant in possession of the property in the sale deed marked as Ex.A.1 ? The extent is not in accordance with the order given in the Civil Court and specifically stated that there was no tenant in possession of the property in the sale deed marked as Ex.A.1 ? 2.Whether the Courts below are correct in concluding that the Sale Deed dated.13.12.1984, marked as Ex.B-1 under which the Defendants purchased from the vendors, which is prior in point of time to Ex.A-2 claimed to have been purchased by the Plaintiff's is fabricated ?" 9.There is no dispute that in the ejectment suit O.S.No.96/1976, Velanganni Ammal was held entitled to the benefits of Section 9 of the City Tenants' Protection Act. As per the order in M.P.No.476/1977, in O.S.No.96/1976, landlords have given the extent of property as 408 sq.ft. When the Commissioner had visited the property, he has given the measurements as 621 sq.ft. North South 23 ft, East West 27 ft. By the order of the Court in M.P.No.476/1976, Ex.A-1 Velanganni Ammal was permitted to purchase the extent of 621 sq.ft. for Rs.2,300/-. She was permitted to pay the value of Rs.2,330/- to the landlords with interest at the rate of 6% p.a. in thirty monthly instalments at Rs.78/- per month, commencing from 10.08.1979. As per the order of the Court, Plaintiff's grandmother Velanganni Ammal deposited the monthly instalment amount of Rs.78/- per month and the total sum of Rs.2,330/- was paid into the Court. The landlords executed Ex.A-2 Sale Deed on 28.06.1985. 10.The Plaintiff has filed the suit for declaration of his title and for delivery of vacant possession. The Plaintiff has to firstly prove his title to the suit property. To show that Velanganni Ammal had right and title to the suit property and to show that Velanganni Ammal paid the instalment amount, Ex.A-8 series- receipts for the payment of monthly instalment has been produced. From Ex.A-8 - series, it is seen that Velanganni Ammal paid some of the instalment amount as noted below : 1.15.02.1980 - Rs.234.00 2.14.05.1980 - Rs.234.00 3.23.06.1980 - Rs.156.00 Apart from the above payments, Velanganni Ammal is said to have made entire payment of Rs.2,330/- on various dates. Thereafter, she filed the application requesting the Court to direct the landlords to execute the Sale Deed. The landlords have executed Ex.A-2 Sale Deed (28.06.1985) in favour of Velanganni Ammal. Thereafter, she filed the application requesting the Court to direct the landlords to execute the Sale Deed. The landlords have executed Ex.A-2 Sale Deed (28.06.1985) in favour of Velanganni Ammal. Plaintiff's grandmother Velanganni Ammal had executed Will in favour of Plaintiff on 4.7.1984, which has been duly probated as per the order of the High Court in O.P.No.517/1987 (Ex.A-3). On the basis of Ex.A-8, A-2 - Sale Deed and Ex.A-3 Courts below have recorded the concurrent finding that the Plaintiff is proved to be the owner of the suit property. 11.Whether on the basis of Ex.B-1 and the evidence of DW-1, can the concurrent findings of the Courts below be interfered with, is the main point arising for consideration to answer the substantial questions of law formulated. 12.The defence of D-6 is that the superstructure in the suit property was put up by his mother (D-1) and that the land was purchased from out of the fund of D-6, in the name of his mother D-1 - Upakara Mariammal and that Velanganni Ammal had no right over the suit property to execute any Will and bequeath the suit property in favour of the Plaintiff. D-4 has not produced any documents showing that he has paid the amount or that his mother D-1 has paid the instalment amount. As per the order of the Court in M.P.No.476/1977, the Sale Deed is to be executed only in favour of Velanganni Ammal who was pursuing the matter by paying monthly instalment amounts. While so, the landlords were not right in executing Ex.B-1 - Sale Deed in favour of D-1 - Upakara Mariammal. 13.Case of the Defendant is that his grandmother Velanganni Ammal has not paid the instalment as per the order of the Court in M.P.No.476/1977. In support of this contention, the vendors/landlords have not been examined nor the documents are produced showing the payments of the instalment amount by D-1 or by D-6. As per the order of the Court, the amount of Rs.2,330/- is payable in thirty instalments of Rs.78/- per month, commencing from 10.08.1979. Thirty instalments would expire by 10.01.1982. If three years time is to be granted from the date of the order, three years time would expire by 10.07.1982. As per the order of the Court, the amount of Rs.2,330/- is payable in thirty instalments of Rs.78/- per month, commencing from 10.08.1979. Thirty instalments would expire by 10.01.1982. If three years time is to be granted from the date of the order, three years time would expire by 10.07.1982. Contending that the amount ought to have been paid within thirty instalments by 30.01.1982 or at any rate by 10.07.1982, the learned counsel for the Appellant/D-6 has submitted that since Velanganni Ammal had not paid the amount within the stipulated period of instalments, her right under Section 9 of the City Tenants' Protection Act had been extinguished. The main contention of the Appellant is that when the right of Velanganni Ammal under Section 9 of the City Tenants' Protection Act was extinguished, she did not have the right to purchase the suit property. Hence Ex.A-2 - Sale Deed (28.06.1985), which is subsequent to Ex.B-1 (13.12.1984), cannot confer any title upon Velanganni Ammal. In support of his contention that Court could extend the period of instalment only by three years from the date of the order in M.P.No.476/1977, the learned counsel for the Appellant has relied upon the following Judgments :- 1.1978 II MLJ 537 (R.Valliamma Vs. Varada Reddy) 2.1980 II MLJ 331 (S.Ramaswami Vs. K.Raman Nair) 14.In those decisions, this Court has held that the time for payment of compensation amount could be extended by further three years from the date of the order. There could be no contra view on the well settled position that time for payment of compensation amount could be extended by further period of three years from the date of the order. But from the facts and evidence and material, the Appellant/D-6 is not right in contending that Velanganni Ammal has not paid the monthly instalment within the stipulated period and that her right under Section 9 of the City Tenants' Protection Act is extinguished. Onbehalf of the Plaintiff, it is stated that Velanganni Ammal paid the entire amount of Rs.2,330/- by August 1983. The copy of the affidavit filed by Velanganni Ammal in M.P.No.49/1984 has been produced. Though the copy of the affidavit has not been marked as evidence in the Courts below, for the sake of completion, we may refer to the same to show as to how Velanganni Ammal paid the monthly instalments before August 1982. The copy of the affidavit filed by Velanganni Ammal in M.P.No.49/1984 has been produced. Though the copy of the affidavit has not been marked as evidence in the Courts below, for the sake of completion, we may refer to the same to show as to how Velanganni Ammal paid the monthly instalments before August 1982. The details of payment are as under :- Date Amount 1.15.02.1980 Rs.234.00 2.14.05.1980 Rs.234.00 3.23.06.1980 Rs.156.00 4.20.11.1980 Rs.234.00 5.05.03.1981 Rs.78.00 6.07.07.1981 Rs.78.00 7.11.08.1981 Rs.78.00 8.20.10.1981 Rs.156.00 9.18.01.1982 Rs.234.00 10.22.04.1982 Rs.156.00 11.18.08.1982 Rs.624.00 12.24.08.1982 Rs.68.00 ----------- Rs.2,330.00 ----------- 15.The above schedule of payments clearly shows the systematic payment by Velanganni Ammal within the stipulated time fixed by the Court. The contention of the Appellant/D-6 that Velanganni Ammal had not paid the monthly instalment and that her right under Section 9 of the City Tenants' Protection Act has been extinguished, has no force. 16.As against the clear case of the Plaintiff, let us consider the case of Appellant/D-6. Absolutely no document has been produced showing that either D-1 or D-6 have paid the monthly instalment amount as per the order of the Court. At this juncture, it is relevant to point out the earlier conduct of D-1. In the ejectment suit O.S.No.96/1976, D-1 - Upakara Mariammal has filed I.A.No.1714/1976 to implead herself as a Defendant in the suit. In the affidavit (Ex.A-9), D-1 Upakara Mariammal has alleged that she is a co-tenant with her mother Velanganni Ammal and due to misunderstanding between herself and her mother Velanganni Ammal, with a view to knock away the property and to give it to sons and daughter of her late daughter Teresa, Velanganni Ammal had deliberately omitted to state that D-1 - Upakara Mariammal is also a co-tenant. On those averments, she filed the application praying to implead her as Defendant in the ejectment suit along with Velanganni Ammal. That application was resisted by the landlords reiterating that Velanganni Ammal alone is the tenant in respect of the suit property and Upakara Mariammal is not entitled to be impleaded as the party to the suit. The said application was dismissed by the Court referring to the registered Lease Agreement between the landlords and Velanganni Ammal dated 20.03.1963, as per which Velanganni Ammal alone was the tenant. In the said application, Upakara Mariammal has produced the ration card alleging that she is residing in the suit property. The said application was dismissed by the Court referring to the registered Lease Agreement between the landlords and Velanganni Ammal dated 20.03.1963, as per which Velanganni Ammal alone was the tenant. In the said application, Upakara Mariammal has produced the ration card alleging that she is residing in the suit property. Referring to that ration card, in I.A.No. 1714/1976, the Court has dismissed the application finding : "... It does not show that she is residing in the suit property. Even if that document shows that she is residing in the petition property, it will not confer any right of tenancy, as there is a registered lease agreement between the Plaintiff and the Defendant alone. Hence I hold that the Petitioner is not a co-tenant as alleged by her. In the result, the petition is dismissed as not maintainable." 17.Thus the plea of D-1 claiming to be a co-tenant in the suit premises was negatived by the Court. D-1 has not preferred any appeal/ revision against the order in I.A.No.1714/1976. Be that as it may, the conduct of D-1 filing the application in I.A.No.1714/1976 to implead herself in the ejectment suit claiming to be co-tenant clearly manifests her intention that she always had an eye on the suit property. She was also interested in seeing that the property should not go to the hands of the son and daughters of her sister Teresa. But the will and desire of Velanganni Ammal prevailed. She had executed the Will bequeathing the suit property in favour of Plaintiff by Will dated 4.7.1984. At the time of executing the Will bequeathing the suit property, Velanganni Ammal did not have the regular Sale deed. But the fact remains that having paid the entire instalment amount Velanganni Ammal had the right under Section 9 of the City Tenants' Protection Act to purchase the suit property. Thereafter, the landlords have executed the regular sale Deed Ex.A-2 (28.06.1985) in favour of Velanganni Ammal. Unassailable right of Velanganni Ammal in the suit property cannot be challenged on the basis of Ex.B-1 in favour of D-1 - Upakara Mariammal who was interested in retaining the property in one way or other. As rightly pointed out by the Courts below, Ex.B-1 - Sale Deed has not been properly proved. As noted earlier, no documents have been produced by D-6 showing the payment of money. As rightly pointed out by the Courts below, Ex.B-1 - Sale Deed has not been properly proved. As noted earlier, no documents have been produced by D-6 showing the payment of money. Case of the Appellant/D-6 is that after the death of his mother D-1 - Upakara Mariammal, D-2 to D-5 and D-7 have relinquished their interest in the suit property in favour of D-6. Neither the Release Deed has been produced nor the brothers and sisters of Appellant D-6 were examined proving the alleged relinquishment. Excepting Ex.B-1 – Registration copy of the Sale Deed and the oral evidence of DW-1, no other evidence has been adduced to substantiate the case of D-6. 18.The contention of Appellant D-6 is two-fold:- (i)in Ex.B-1 mention of recital about the Court proceedings and default of Velanganni Ammal in not paying the instalment and payment of instalment by D-1 Upakara Mariammal; (ii)there is no such recital in Ex.A-2 mentioning about the Court proceedings and that the sale Deed is executed pursuant to the right of Velanganni Ammal under Section 9 of the City Tenants' Protection Act. 19.For appreciation of the points urged, it is necessary to refer to the relevant recitals in impugned Sale Deed Ex.B-1 which reads :- "jh';fSk; mt;thnw fle;j 10 tUl';fshf thlif brYj;jpf; bfhz;L nkw;go kidia mDgtpj;Jf; bfhz;L tUfpwPh;/ 1979 y; nfhh;l;L jPh;g;g[g;go j';fs; jhahh; nkw;go kidia fpiuak; bgw;Wf; bfhs;s. eltof;if vLf;fhky; ,Ue;jij Kd;dpl;L j';fSila jhahh; rhh;ghf fpiuaj; bjhifia jtiz Kiwapy; fl;oaj; bjhif U: 2330-/ (vGj;jhy; U:gha; ,uz;lhapuj;J Ke;E}w;W Kg;gJ) 1/cj;jpuehjd; 2/cgfuk; 3/rt[hpak;khs; 5/ eh';fs; bgw;Wf;bfhz;l goahy; fpiuaj; bjhif g{uht[k; v';fSf;F bry;yhfptpl;lgoahy; j';fSila jhahhpd; xg;g[jy; nghpy; ,e;j fpiuag; gj;jpuj;jpd; K:yk; nkw;go bc&oa{y; brhj;jhdJ mokidia j';fs; bgaUf;F fpiuak; bra;Jf; bfhLj;J tpl;nlhk;/" 20.All the above recitals are neither in consonance with the conduct of the parties nor reflect the documents. The recital that Velanganni Ammal had not taken steps to pay the amount is falsified. As noted earlier in paragraph (14) Velanganni Ammal had paid the entire amount of Rs.2,330/- by August 1982, thereby, complied with the Court order. Further in Ex.B-1, it is stated that the Sale Deed has been executed with the consent of Velanganni Ammal, "jhahhpd; xg;g[jypd; nghpy;". Even during her life time, Velanganni Ammal had issued Ex.A-4 notice to the first Defendant - Upakara Mariammal, calling upon her to vacate and hand over the vacant possession of the suit property. Further in Ex.B-1, it is stated that the Sale Deed has been executed with the consent of Velanganni Ammal, "jhahhpd; xg;g[jypd; nghpy;". Even during her life time, Velanganni Ammal had issued Ex.A-4 notice to the first Defendant - Upakara Mariammal, calling upon her to vacate and hand over the vacant possession of the suit property. Issuance of notice by Velanganni Ammal clearly shows that she has never consented for Ex.B-1 Sale Deed. In response to Ex.A-4 notice, D-1 had issued Ex.A-5 Reply Notice. Nowhere in Ex.A-5 it is stated that Ex.B-1 was effected with the consent of Velanganni Ammal. The above recitals in Ex.B-1 are demonstrably false. After elaborate discussions, the Courts below have rightly found that no probative value could be attached to Ex.B-1 Sale Deed, which must have been executed after due deliberation to defeat the lawful claim of Velanganni Ammal. 21.Onbehalf of the Appellant/D-6, it is also contended that suit property had not been properly described. It is also contended that the suit being for delivery of possession, in the absence of correct details on the description of property, the Court below erred in decreeing the suit, ordering delivery of possession. In support of his contention, the learned counsel for the Appellant/D-6 has pointed out certain variation in the measurements of the suit property in the documents and in the plaint schedule. In ejectment suit, the suit property was described as a extent of 408 sq.ft. But the Commissioner has measured the land and found that the building was to the extent of 621 sq.ft. Velanganni Ammal was permitted to purchased 621 sq.ft. for Rs.2,330/- (vide Ex.A-1 order in M.P.No.476/197). Covering the same, Ex.B-1 - Sale Deed in favour of D-1 - Upakara Mariammal has been executed for 621 sq.ft. - East West 27 ft, North South - 23 ft. But in Ex.A-2 Sale Deed, in favour of Velanganni Ammal, 468 sq.ft. - East West measuring 24 ft. North South 17 ft. is stated as the property conveyed. Now the plaint does not refer to measurements nor the extent. - East West 27 ft, North South - 23 ft. But in Ex.A-2 Sale Deed, in favour of Velanganni Ammal, 468 sq.ft. - East West measuring 24 ft. North South 17 ft. is stated as the property conveyed. Now the plaint does not refer to measurements nor the extent. In the plaint schedule, the suit property has been described as :- "House and premises at No.10, Bentleman Street, Kasimedu, Tondiarpet, bearing O.S.No.3805 new S.No.3475/24 bounded on the North by Xavier's House, on the South by Daniel's house on the East by the land of Xavier and on the West by the above said property street." Though the extent has not been mentioned, the suit property has been clearly mentioned by the boundaries. There is neither lack of clarity nor the description of the suit property suffers from any erroneous description. The Decree of the Courts below does not suffer from any infirmity on account of lack of clarity in the description of the suit property. 22.In proper appreciation of the evidence and the conduct of the parties and the payment of instalment by Velanganni Ammal, the Courts below have rightly upheld Ex.A-2 Sale Deed and the title of Velanganni Ammal, from whom the Plaintiff has derived right and title. By the concurrent findings, the Courts below have rightly negatived the defence plea decreeing the Plaintiff suit for declaration of title and for delivery of possession. The concurrent findings and the reasonings of the Courts below do not suffer from any erroneous approach or serious and substantial error warranting interference. The second appeal has no merits and is bound to fail. 23.The Judgment and Decree dated 27.09.2000 passed in A.S.No.77/2000 by the VII Additional Judge, City Civil Court, Chennai, confirming the Judgment and Decree of the II Assistant Judge, City Civil Court, Chennai dated 25.01.2000 in O.S.No.4142/1995, are confirmed and this second appeal is dismissed. In view of the relationship of the parties and other circumstances, there is no order as to costs. The Appellant D-6 is directed to hand over vacant possession within two months from the date of this Judgment.