The above second appeal has been filed by the defendants in O.S.No.396 of 1995 on the file of the Additional District Munsif Court, Ulundurpet, who succeeded before the Trial Court but lost before the First Appellate Court in A.S.No.132 of 1997 where-under the learned Additional District Judgec, Villupuram, reversed the judgment and decree of the Trial Court. The suit has been filed for declaration of the plaintiffs title to the suit property and for a consequential permanent injunction.

2. The case of the plaintiff is that the suit property originally belonged to one Krishna Pillai and from him one Ponnammal, W/o. Manicka Padayachi purchased the same under a registered sale deed dated 05.05.1939; Ponnammal died intestate on 010. 1942 leaving behind her only daughter-Alamelu Ammal, who inherited the suit property and while she was in possession and enjoyment, sold the property to the plaintiff under a registered sale deed dated 07.04.1980; from the date of purchase the plaintiff is in possession and enjoyment of the suit property covered by Patta No.90 and New Patta No.82 was issued in his favour; plaintiff is paying the Kists; since the defendants tried to interfere with the possession of the plaintiff he has filed the suit for declaration and for permanent injunction.

3. The defendants contested the suit inter-alia contending as follows:-

The defendants admitted the title of Ponnammal but contended that Ponnammal has no separate source of income to purchase the suit property; the suit property was purchased only from the funds and income derived from the Joint Family Properties of her husband-Manicka Padayachi. It is contended that the suit property was purchased in the name of Ponnammal for the benefit of her minor sons-Rangasamy, Indi and Arumugam; after her death, her sons inherited the suit property and they orally partitioned the same and in the partition the suit property was allotted to Rangasamy, the elder son of Ponnammal and after his death, his only daughter inherited the same and on her death her husband-Chinasamy was in possession and thereafter the said Chinnasamy and Arumugam, another son of Ponnammal, sold the same under a registered sale deed dated 03.03.1974 to the second defendant who was a minor at that time and he was represented by his father the first defendant. It is the further case of the defendants that the suit property was mortgaged by the defendants in favour of one Panduranga Asari and he is in possession as Bogyadar. It is further contended that since the defendants are in possession for more than 20 years they have prescribed their title by adverse possession. On the aforesaid pleadings they sought for dismissal of the suit.

4. The Trial Court has framed number of issues. During trial the plaintiff was examined as P.W.1 and one Venkatachalam has been examined as P.W.2 and Masilamani, the attestor of Ex.A-3-sale deed has been examined as P.W.3, and on the side of the plaintiff Exs.A-1 to A-12 have been marked. On the side of the defendants, the second defendant was examined as D.W.1, the first defendant has been examined as D.W.2 and Arumugam, son of Ponnammal has been examined as D.W.3 and one Panduranga Asari has been examined as D.W.4 and on the side of the defendants, Exs.B-1 to B-14 have been marked.

5. On a consideration of the oral and documentary evidence adduced in the case the Trial Court held that the suit property was purchased in the name of Ponnammal, the female member of the family only, for the benefit of the minor sons and hence the vendor of the plaintiff had no valid title to sell the suit property to the plaintiff and accordingly dismissed the suit with costs. Aggrieved by that, the plaintiff filed an appeal in A.S.No.132 of 1997 before the Additional District Judge, Villupuram. The learned Additional District Judge, on an independent consideration of the oral and documentary evidence adduced in the case, the findings and reasonings of the trial court, rever