Possession traced to lawful title.

The second defendant in O.S.No.130 of 1980 on the file of the learned Second Additional Subordinate Judge, Pondicherry, is the appellant. Plaintiffs 1 to 5 are the respondents. The suit is for partition and separate possession of l/4th share in the suit properties and for future mesne profits in the l/4th share. The case of the plaintiffs briefly stated is as follows: The suit properties in Setharapattu village were purchased by Doraisami Naidu and Chinnasamy Naidu under a registered sale deed dated 210. 1982. By reason of that sale deed, they became entitled each to an undivided half share in the properties. Duraisami Naidu died in 1944 leaving behind him his two daughters, namely Meenakshiammal (D-1) and Jayalakshmiammal who is now dead. Duraisami’s wife predeceased him and so Duraisami’s half share was inherited by the above said two daughters and they were in possession of the properties along with Ramachandra Naidu (D-2) son of late Chinnasami Naidu. Jayalakshmi’s husband is Seshachala Naidu (first plaintiff) and their sons and daughters are the plaintiff’s 2 to 5 herein. The first defendant and Jayalakshmiam exclusively. The defendants are entitled to 3/4th share while the plaintiff’s branch is entitled to 1/ 4th share. The share of Duraisami Naidu was taken by his two daughters. Hence the suit.

2. The first defendant in her written statement contended as follows: The suit properties absolutely belong to the second defendant herein and the plaintiffs can have no right over the same. The properties were purchased by Chinnasami Naidu and he was in possession of the same absolutely till his life time and after his death, the property came into the hands of the second defendant as the sole heir of Chinnasami Naidu. From the year 1949 till the date of filing of the written statement, the properties were under the ownership and enjoyment of the second defendant. The first defendant is not entitled to any possession over the suit properties. The second defendant effected partition of all his properties among his sons and his respective shares are in possession and enjoyment of the respective parties. Hence the first defendant submits that the suit may be dismissed.

3. The second defendant filed a written statement separately contending as follows: The father of the second defendant Chinnasami Naidu had both ancestral and self-acquired properties. He had three daughters by name Lakshmi Ammal Mottai Ammal and Adhi Lakshmi and one son, namely the second defendant. Duraisami and his sister Muthulakshmi (mother of the second defendant) belonged to Avanipuram, a village near Tindi-vanam which is about 35 miles away from Sedarapattu village. The family of Muthulakshmi and Duraiswamy owned about 3 acres of land. There was no appreciable income from those lands. When Duraisami Naidu gave his eldest sister in marriage to the said Chinnasami, the latter wanted to see that the said Duraiswamy continued to live under his patronage in Sedarapattu village itself. Doraisami married the daughter of Chinnaswami. Chinnasami Naidu had also bulls so as to enable Duraiswamy to make a living out of it apart from his negligible agricultural income. The two other daughters of Chinnasamy Naidu, Mottai Ammal and Adilakshmi were married into families which were sufficiently affluent and Chinnasamy Naidu had nothing to worry about them. In the circumstances, with a view to see that Duraiswamy did not leave the family, Chinnasamy Naidu purchased the suit properties under registered sale deed dated 210. 1922 in his name and in the name of the said Duraiswamy. The entire sale consideration was paid by Chinnasami Naidu himself. No part of the sale consideration came from the said Duraiswamy. There was no intention at the time of the said purchase by the said Chinnasami Naidu that the said Duraiswamy should have any beneficial interest in the said property. It is significant to note that the said Duraisami himself was not aware of the purchase. Dora