The main legal point established in the judgment is that while the plaintiff proved her title to the property, she was estopped from claiming title due to her conduct in the sale transaction, and the title was lost by the doctrine of acquiescence.

1. The appellant is also recorded as one of the legal representative of the deceased 2nd respondent by order dated 18.07.2011 made in C.M.P.No.1732 of 2010] [Respondents 3 to 8 were brought on record as legal representatives of the deceased 2nd respondent by order dated 18.07.2011 made in C.M.P.No.1733 of 2010] This second appeal is filed against the judgment and decree dated 28.10.1996 made in A.S.No.56 of 1992 on the file of the learned Sub Judge, Ariyalur, reversing the judgment and decree dated 11.02.1992 made in O.S.No.90 of 1989 on the file of the learned District Munsif, Ariyalur.) The legal representative of the deceased sole plaintiff is the appellant. The suit in O.S.90 of 1989 was filed before the District Munsif, Ariyalur, by one Murugayee against the 1st respondent – Mrs.Suguna Sambandam w/o Thirugnanam. During the pendency of the suit , on an interlocutory application filed by the 1st defendant, the 2nd defendant – Manickam Pillai was impleaded. The said suit was one for declaration of tile and for recovery of possession of the suit property. On 12.02.1992, the learned District Munsif, Ariyalur, decreed the suit as prayed for. Challenging the same, the 1st defendant preferred an appeal in A.S.No.56 of 1992 on the file of the learned Sub Judge, Ariyalur. By a decree and judgment dated 28.10.1996, the learned Sub Judge allowed the appeal thereby setting aside the decree and judgment of the trial court and dismissed the original suit. Even before the appeal could be preferred Mrs.Murugayee [the sole plaintiff] died. Therefore, her legal representative Mrs.Meenakshi has come up with this second appeal. The 2nd defendant - Manickkam Pillai remained ex parte before the trial court, first appellate court and also before this Court.

2. The case of the plaintiff as culled-out from the plaint is as follows:-

The suit property was originally owned by one Chidambaram Pillai. The said Chidambaram Pillai had a daughter by name Manickathachi. Her husband was Kandasamy Pillai. Chidambaram Pillai had executed a registered will on 12.07.1927 thereby bequeathing the suit property in favour of Manickathachi and Kandasamy Pillai. By virtue of the said will, after the demise of Chidambaram Pillai, Manickathachi and her husband Kandasamy Pillai became absolute owners and they were enjoying the suit property. They died intestate. Their daughter is Murugayee, the plaintiff in the suit. After the demise of her parents Manickathachi as well as Kandasamy pillai, it is the case of the plaintiff that she inherited the property and was in enjoyment of the same as absolute owner.

3. The 2nd defendant – Mr.Mainickam Pillai, who remained ex parte throughout, is the husband of Murugayee, the sole plaintiff in the suit. Manickam Pillai and her sons entered into a registered partition under Ex.B.4 on 17.11.1956. In the said partition deed, the suit property has been shown as their joint family property and allotted to the share of 2nd defendant. Subsequently, the 2 nd defendant sold away the suit property under Ex.B.2 registered sale deed in favour of the 1st defendant on 22.03.1984. The sole plaintiff – Murugayee was one of the attestors to the signature of Manickam Pillai in the said document. According to the plaintiff, for various purposes Manickam pillai used to force her to affix her thumb impression in a number of documents. In such a way, she was made to affix her left thumb impression in Ex.B.2 also. It is her specific contention that though she was an attestor to the document, since she had no knowledge about the nature of the document and since the 2nd defendant had no independent title to convey, Ex.B.2 sale deed will not convey any title to the 1st defendant. However, the 1st defendant had started claiming title for the property. The 1st defendant has been in possession and enjoyment of the property and she has declined to vacate the suit property and to hand over the vacant possession to the plaintiff. With these contentions, t