Examination of defendant after examination of witnesses.

.1. The plaintiffs in O.S.No.338 of 1977 and the defendants in O.S.No.19 of 1978, both the suits on the file of the District Munsif, Kovilpatti, are the appellant. The defendant in O.S.338 of 1977 and the plaintiff in O.S.No.19 of 1978 has filed the cross objections in S.A.No.369/84

2. The suit O.S.No.338 of 1977 was filed by the appellants for declaration and injunction in respect of a house property. O.S.No.19 of 1978 was filed by the respondent for declaration and injunction in respect of landed properties. The first appellant and the respondent are sister and brother and appellants 2 and 3 are the sons of the first appellant.

.3. The facts necessary for the disposal of th second appeals are as follows: Under the original of Ex-A-1 the house property was purchased jointly by the first appellant and the respondent on 3. 1965. This was immediately followed by a settlement deed under the original of Ex.A-2 dated 3. 1965 under which the respondent purported to settle his share in the house property in favour of appellants 2 and 3 retaining for himself a life interest. According to the appellants, though the respondent retained a right to joint possession, the said joint possession was relinquished pursuant to a family arrangement between the appellants on the one side and the respondent on the other. Appellants 2 and 3 were to discharge the loan due from the respondent to Chinnanaickenpatti Co-operative Society in lieu of the respondent relinquishing his rights in the house property. According to appellants 2 and 3 they discharged the loan and the appellants were in exclusive possession and enjoyment having an absolute title and the house also was registered in the name of the second appellant, who was also paying the house tax and since the respondent attempted to interfere, the suit O.S.No.338 of 1977 came to be filed for declaration and injunction. So far as the other suit O.S.No.19 of 1978 is concerned, the respondent claimed title to the lands ancestrally and the appellants tried to interfere with the possession and enjoyment and the suit was therefore necessitated.

.4. The defence of the respondent with regard to the suit relating to the house was that the settlement deed Ex.A-2 was a rank forgery, that he did not execute the same and that taking advantage of the interim order of injunction granted by the court he was thrown out of the house.

5. So far as the suit relating to the lands, the defence of the appellants was that the lands were their ancestral property, that the Zamin Patta also stood in the name of Karutha Gurusamy Naicker and Gurusamy, the grandfather of appellants 2 and 3, that after the death of the father of appellants 2 and 3, the respondent took advantage of his position as their maternal uncle manocurred the records in his favour and that the appellants were alone in enjoyment of the lands and the suit was liable to be dismissed.

6. The trial court framed the necessary issue in both the suits and after a joint trial, by a common judgment dated 30.9.1980 decreed both the suits. The appellants filed A.S.No.10 of 1981 against the decision in O.S.No.19 of 1978. The respondent filed A.S.No.113 of 1981 against the decision in O.S.No338 of 1977. There were also application filed for reception of additional evidence. The learned Principal Subordinate Judge, Tuticorin, discusses the appeal A.S.No.10 of 1981 filed by the appellants, allowed the appeal A.S.No.113 of 1981 in part holding that the appellants would be entitled to only declaration with regard to the house property and they would not be entitled to a decree for injunction.

7. Aggrieved, the present second appeals have been filed. I have already referred to the cross objections. The substantial question of law framed for decision at the time of admission in S.A.No.369/84 is as follows:

“Whether the reasonings given by the first Appellate Court for reversing the finding of the trial court with regard to the relief of injunction are pe