Party impleaded as additional defendant has to be examined in proceedings.

Second plaintiff, who was impleaded as legal heir of original plaintiff in O.S.No.106 of 1969 on the file of the Subordinate Judge, Nagercoil is the appellant in this appeal.

2. The following reliefs are asked in the plaint:

(a) The title and possession of the plaintiff over the suit property to be declared arid a consequential injunction restraining the defendants from entering in the suit property, from cutting down and removing the trees and from committing any other kinds of waste over the suit property be passed;

(b) The plaintiff be given a decree for recovery of Rs.3,000 towards damages from the defendants and their assets;

(c) The plaintif f be given her costs of the suit from the defendants;

(d) Such other reliefs which this Court deems just and proper for the ends of justice may also be granted.

The relevant facts which are necessary for the proper disposal of the appeal may be summarised as follows.

.3. It is averred in the plaint that the whole area comprised in lekkam 28 originally belonged to one Kendran Kanikkaran. It is further alleged that as per Exhibit A-22 dated 112. 1049 ME one- fourth portion was sold by the legal heir or Kendran Kanikkaran, in favour of Nallaperumal Muthuswami. Out of that one-fourth, one- fifth share of the northeastern portion was purchased by one Subramanian Sivan and Nagendran Ananchaperumal as evidenced by Exhibit A-23 dated 12. 1050 M.E. Later, a partition was entered between Subramanian Sivan and others on 22. 1053 M.E. evidenced by Exhibit A-3. As per the said deed the property was divided into ten equal shares. 5 1/2 shares were taken by Sivan and One Ananthalakshmi Pillai., The remaining 4 1/2 shares were taken by Nagendran Valayuthaperumal and his brother Nagendran Ananchaperumal. The 4 1/2 shares taken by the two brothers are situate on the eastern -western sides of the 5 1/2 shares taken by Sivan and Ananthalakshmi Pillai. While the share’s were in possession, on 15. 1056 M.E, as evidenced by Exhibit A-2, Velayutha Perumal and Ananchaperumal sold the eastern portion, which they obtained under Exhibit A-3, to Mrs.Aney Amey Cox. It is stated that the property conveyed under Exhibit A-2 has well defined boundaries and all the properties lying within the boundaries were in possession of the purchaser under Exhibit A-2. The right of Mrs.Aney Aney Cox devolved in favour of her grand son C.H. Simpson of Black Rock Estate, and he was in possession. It is further stated that within the boundaries covered by Exhibit A-2, the extent will be about 100 acres and the same was agreed to be sold by Simpson in favour of appellant’s father late Issiah. It is stated that there was an agreement for sale (orally) in the year 1958. Before the sale could be completed, Issiah died some time in the year 1964, and therefore, the sale deed was taken by appellant’s mother, the original plaintiff in the suit on 3. 1969 for a consideration of Rs.10,000. It is stated that ever since the date of agreement appellant’s mother were in possession of that property. The sale deed dated 3. 1969 is marked in the suit as Exhibit A-1.

4. It is further alleged in the plaint that the defendants have no right over any portion of the property.

5. It is further averred in the plaint that the defendants in the suit filed O.S.No..51 of 1963 of thefile of the same court for declaration of title and possession over portions of the property comprised in lekkom 28. The claim was made as if the property belonged to their family. The plaintiff further says that the prop-erty did not belong to the defendants’ family and they have no right over any portion of the suit property as described in the sale deed. It is further stated that the Defendants 1 to 6 are to be restrained from putting forward any claim over any portion of the property in this case. The plaintiff has also taken a contention that the right if any of the defendants 1 to 6 over any portion of the plaint schedule property is barred by limitation and