1. The following are the gist of the pleadings of the plaintiff in O.S.No.792 of 1993 who is defendant in all other suits:-

1.(a) The properties covered by the suits are coffee estate lands sprawling to an extent of 48.76 Acres situated in Mundagambadi village in Yercaud Taluk, a house and Rice mill with godown in Kannankurichi, Salem. They originally belonged to one Rengayya Chettiar, who is elder brother of Venkatarama Chettiar who is paternal grandfather of the plaintiff. At the time of filing of the suit the plaintiff Krishnan was 14 years of age. He was declared as major on 7. 2000 by order passed in I.A.No.381 of 2000.

1.(b) Rengayya Chettiar had two wives. First wife is one Janaki Ammal through whom he had one daughter by name Amsaveni who was insane from birth. After the death of Janaki Ammal, he married the first defendant Padmavathi @ Padmalochini (hereinafter referred to as Padmalochini). She had no issues. She did not live with her husband and she filed suit for maintenance and got decree in her favour. Rengayya Chettiar preferred two appeals in A.S.No.684 of 1992 and A.S.No.718 of 1981. Pending hearing of the appeals, he died on 212. 1982. While he was hale and healthy, he executed a Registered Will on 14.01.1980, bequeathing all his properties to the plaintiff by appointing one V. Sekar, father of the plaintiff as testamentary guardian to administer the estates till the minor attained majority. On 21. 1980, he also settled the properties in favour of the plaintiff by means of a registered settlement deed. Since he was very old aged 82 years, having no male issues, he adopted the plaintiff on 30.01.1980 by performing "Dathahomam" for adoption in the presence of elders. At that time Padmalochani was also present. Subsequently an adoption deed was also written and registered.

1.(c) After the demise of Rengayya Chettiar, plaintiff Krishnan filed applications in the appeals to implead him as party before the High Court Madras and the High Court directed the court below to hold an enquiry as to whether the plaintiff alone was legal representative to the deceased. Padamalochani received two lakhs from the next friend of the minor plaintiff then and gave it in writing that she did not have any interest in his properties. She has also accepted therein that the deeds in favour of minor plaintiff were valid. Because of her voluntary statement, the Court also decided that the plaintiff is the legal representative of the deceased. After the settlement, the plaintiff got the properties and had been enjoying through his father and next friend V. Sekar. Patta was changed to his name and he has been paying the land revenue also.

1 (d). As regards the settlement executed by Rengayya Chettiar, he paid a sum of Rs.72,000/- as gift tax to the Income Tax Department. It was paid through his auditor one Sundaram. During second week of October 1993, it was given out that Padmalochani sold the properties to 3 to 16 defendants with the assistance of the second defendant. The said sales do not affect the rights of the plaintiff. The plaintiff alone has been in possession and enjoyment of the properties, defendants could not get any patta from the revenue department. Hence, suit has been filed for declaration and permanent injunction.

2. The following are succinct allegations of defence contained in the written statement and the plaints filed by Padmalochani:-

2.(a) It is false to state that on 11. 1980, Rengayya Chettiar executed a will in favour of the plaintiff. It is equally incorrect to state that on 21. 1980 he settled the properties in favour of the plaintiff. It is not admitted that on 30.1.1990 Regayya Chettiar adopted plaintiff and she was also present at the time of adoption. She was not informed by her advocate Mr. P.T. Duraisamy while the enquiry was held and the plaintiff was declared as legal representative of the deceased Rengayya Chettiar. Only after the receipt of summons in O.S.No.792 of 1993 she came to know th