The main legal point established in the judgment is that unstamped and unregistered documents, such as partition lists, are inadmissible as evidence, and possession of properties must be established to claim adverse possession.

The Second Appeal is filed against the judgment and decree dated 14.12.1999 made in A.S.No.149/1998 on the file of the Principal Subordinate Judge, Mayiladuthurai, reversing the judgment and decree dated 28.10.1998 made in O.S.No. 387/1995 on the file of District Munsif Court, Sirkali.

2. The averments in the plaint are as follows:-

(i) The suit properties were owned by the plaintiffs father Duraiappa Padayachi and his brother Ayyadurai Padayachi. They were enjoyed in an undivided state by the joint family of Duraiappa Padayachi and his brother Ayyadurai Padayachi.

(ii) The plaintiff is the eldest son of Duraiappa Padayachi.The defendants 1 and 2 are the plaintiffs brother. The third defendant is the son of Ayyadurai Padayachi.

(iii) After the death of Duraiappa Padayachi, the joint family properties were divided under a family arrangement between the plaintiff and defendants 1 and 2 and the plaintiffs mother since deceased Thangappa Ayal, in respect of the wet lands of the family of Duraiappa Padayachi on 09.10.1977. A schedule property mentioned in Karai Olai were allotted to the plaintiff. He is in possession and enjoyment of the same from 1977. So, he prescribed title by adverse possession.

(iv) In respect of dry lands, there was another partition taken place on 14.06.1978 and by which, the plaintiff became the absolute owner of B schedule property. Each party was given a copy of Karai Olai. He is in exclusive possession from 1978, ousting other sharers and adverse to the interest of others and to their knowledge. Hence, he prescribed title by adverse possession.

(v) The plaintiff issued a notice to the defendants on 22.05.1981 to effect the division of the house and partition deed to be executed in a stamp paper and for registration. A reply has been sent by the first defendant.

(vi) The defendants have no right over the property. Now, they attempted to interfere with the possession. Hence, the plaintiff come forward with the suit for injunction restraining the defendants from interfering with the peaceful possession and enjoyment.

3. The gist and essence of written statement filed by the second defendant, adopted by the first defendant, are as follows:-

(i) The plaintiff is not in possession of A schedule property. No cause of action for the suit. The plaintiff and defendants 1 and 2s father Duraiappa Padayachi has executed a settlement deed in favour of plaintiff in the year 1959 and settled 10 acres of land. Likewise, in 1972, he has settled 10 acres of land to the defendants 1 and 2. He also settled 10 acres to his brother Ayyadurai Padayachi. The settlement deeds have been duly executed, validly accepted and acted upon. They are in possession in pursuance of the settlement deeds.

(ii) In A Schedule property - Item Nos. 19/2, 19/6, 60/7, 84/1, 86/1 and 62/3 - 3 acres 74 cents were allotted to the first defendant in the settlement deed. It is in his possession and enjoyment. Likewise, in A Schedule property – Item Nos. 86/2 and 85/4 - 2 acres 41 cents has been settled by father Duraiappa Padayachi in favour of the second defendant. The plaintiff wantonly suppressed the same and come forward with the false suit.

(iii) The plaintiff has not taken possession in pursuance of the partition list dated 09.10.1977 and hence, it is not valid in law. On 17.07.1989, a panchayat was convened, in which, both the parties accepted to take the property as mentioned in the settlement deed and in respect of house also, the property has been divided. It was decided to execute a partition deed and got it registered. But the plaintiff has wantonly suppressed all the material facts and come forward with the false suit.

(iv) The plaintiffs father Duraiappa Padayachi filed O.S.No. 526/1961 against the plaintiff and his brother Ayyadurai Padayachi for injunction and obtained an order of injunction, which shows that the plaintiff is not in possession of the suit properties. The plaintiff is never in possession of the suit p