For claiming relief appropriate pleadings have to be raised.

The unsuccessful plaintiff in O.S.No.625 of 1992 on the file of the Principal District Munsif Court, Virudhachalam, who has lost before the Courts below has filed the above second appeal.

2. The appellant filed the suit for declaration of her title to the suit properties and for permanent injunction restraining the defendants from interfering with her possession.

.3. The brief facts of the case are as follows:

The appellant claims title under a registered sale deed, dated 212. 1991 executed by one Thaialnayaki. Thaialnayaki is said to have executed a mortgage deed in favour of the plaintiff on 13.08.1991 for a sum of Rs.10,000/-and she is said to have obtained a further loan of Rs.14,000/-. The appellant claims to be in possession and enjoyment of the suit properties from the date of purchase and the first defendant has no right to the suit properties. Pending the suit, the first defendant died and according to the appellant since there is no legal heir, none was added as Legal Representative of the first defendant. According to the appellant, though the defendants have no right to the suit properties, as they interfered with the possession of the appellant, they have been impleaded as defendants.

.4. The fourth defendant filed a written statement which was adopted by the third defendant. The defendants resisted the suit raising the following defence, namely:

The suit properties did not belong to Thaialnayaki absolutely and the purchase by the appellant is disputed and the possession is fully with the fourth defendant. The sale deed is not binding on the defendants and the said saie deed is not valid in law. The alleged loan obtained by Thaialnayaki is not admitted. The loan transaction is a fraudulent one. It is the specific case of the defendants that the suit properties originally belong to Mookapadayachi and he executed a Will, dated 11.02.1939 creating a Trust in respect of the suit properties and other properties. As per the said Will, Thaialnayaki had no right to alienate the suit properties and even if she alienates it is not valid. Defendants 1, 3 and 4, as legal heirs, are entitled for the Trust property as per the Will. Thaialnayaki expired on 30.01.1992. It is false to plead that the defendants are trying to trespass into the suit properties. There is no cause of action for the suit. On the above said pleadings, they prayed for dismissal of the suit.

5. An additional written statement was filed by the third defendant which was adopted by the fourth defendant. The additional written statement is to the following effect:

The suit property is not the exclusive property of Thaialnayaki and she had no right to alienate the same and therefore the appellant cannot claim any right under the sale deed. In respect of the suit properties, a joint patta was issued in favour of Thaialnayaki and one Chinnapillai. The said fact is borne out in the Chitta, Adangal and in the A Register pertaining to fasli 1384 and 1385. Under the Will, Mookapadayachi had bequeathed A schedule property to Thaialnayaki and B schedule property to Karupayee, who is his second wife and C schedule property to Chinnapillai and all of them have been given only life estate and after the demise, the properties were to go to Thiruvenkadam and Chakravarthy and they have to hold the property in Trust for Charitable purpose. Defendants 3 and 4 are in joint possession and enjoyment of the suit properties. Chakravarthys wife is Amsalai and Chakravarthys daughters are Amudha and Jayalakshmi and they are the joint owners of the properties and they have not been impleaded as parties in this suit and therefore the suit is liable to be dismissed for non-joinder of necessary parties. Further in pursuance of the Will dated 11.02.1939, the said Chinnapillai filed a suit in O.S.No.293 of 1995 against Thaialnayaki, Karupayee and Chokkalinga Padayachi and has obtained a decree against them in respect of trees in the suit properties. The said decree is bindi