The main legal point established in the judgment is the interpretation of ancestral property under Hindu law and its application to determine the rights of the parties involved in a property dispute.

This appeal is focussed at the instance of the original plaintiff animadverting upon the judgment and decree dated 21.11.2005 passed in A.S.No.42 of 2005 by the learned Additional Subordinate Judge, Chengalpattu, confirming the judgment and decree passed by the learned District Munsif cum Judicial Magistrate, Thirukallukundram in O.S.No.284 of 1996 dated 28.01.2005.

2. The parties are referred to hereunder according to their litigative status and ranking before the trial Court.

3. Compendiously and concisely, the germane facts absolutely necessary for the disposal of this Second Appeal would run thus:

(a) The appellant in the Second Appeal as plaintiff, filed the suit seeking the following reliefs:

"(i) For declaration of plaintiffs title to B schedule property and consequential relief of vacant possession of the same;

(ii) For declaration of plaintiffs title to the C schedule property and for consequential relief of permanent injunction restraining the defendants, their men, agents and servants from in any way interfering with the plaintiffs peaceful possession and enjoyment of the same ; and

(iii) For costs." (Extracted as such)

(b) Precisely and pithily, the gist and kernel of the averments as found set out in the plaint would run thus:

The 'A' scheduled property which is comprised of the 'B' and 'C' scheduled properties, originally belonged to one Chinnammal, Wife of Moorthy and her sons and daughters. The plaintiff purchased the entire 'A' scheduled property, as a grama natham vacant site, vide the sale deed dated 18.10.1994. The rectification deed also emerged as an adjunct to the earlier sale deed referred to supra, whereby, it was clarified that out of the total extent of 11 cents, 3 cents happened to be the Government grama natham earlier, which was given to the said Moorthy by virtue of a patta given by the Government, and the remaining extent originally belonged to Moorthy by virtue of he having purchased as per sale deed dated 18.10.1994, which constituted the antecedent title deed to the sale deed dated 18.10.1994. While so, the first defendant/Chinnaponnu who happened to be the wife of Rajendran, one of the vendors of the plaintiff in the sale deed dated 18.10.1994, started creating trouble and she has been in occupation and enjoyment of the 'B' scheduled property, relating to which possession is sought for and in the remaining extent she is attempting to trespass and that has been described as the 'C' scheduled property, relating to which injunction is sought for. As such, according to the plaintiff, the suit was a comprehensive one filed as against the first defendant and also as against D2 to D5, the villagers, who were actively aiding and abetting Chinnaponnu who resisted the lawful claim of the plaintiff.

(c) D2 to D5 remained ex parte. D1 filed the written statement denying and refuting, challenging and impugning the averments/allegations in the plaint, the gist and kernel of them would run thus:

The 'A' scheduled property happened to be the ancestral property in the hands of Moorthy, whereupon, D1's son born to Rajendran, being the grandson of Moorthy, is entitled to a moiety in it and hence, any sale effected by the other co-sharers excluding Kamalakannan, would not be binding on him.

Accordingly, she would pray for the dismissal of the suit.

(d) Whereupon issues were framed.

(3) On the plaintiffs' side, one Subramani was examined as P.W.1 and Exs.A1 to A9 were marked. The first defendant-Chinnaponnu examined herself as D.W.1 along with D.W.2 Ramakrishna Pillai and Exs.B1 to B4 were marked.

4. Ultimately the trial Court dismissed the suit as against which the appeal was filed by the plaintiff, for nothing but to be dismissed, confirming the judgment and decree of the trial Court.

5. Challenging and impugning the judgment and decree of both the Courts below, this Second Appeal has been focussed on various grounds.

6. The learned counsel for the plaintiff placing reliance on the grounds o