( 1. ) THE concurrent Judgments and decrees passed in Original Suit No.153 of 2000 by the District Munsif Court, Periyakulam and in Appeal Suit No.19 of 2005 by the Sub Court, Periyakulam are being challenged in the present Second Appeal.

( 2. ) THE appellant herein as plaintiff has instituted Original Suit No.153 of 2000 on the file of the trial Court for the relief of perpetual injunction, wherein the present respondent has been shown as sole defendant.

In the plaint it is averred that the suit property is originally belonged to the father of the defendant by name Ramachandran Naickar and he purchased the same under a registered sale deed dated 02.02.1963. The said Ramachandran Naickar has executed a settlement deed dated 17.06.1986 in favour of his wife viz. Seeniammal and the same has come into effect. The plaintiff has purchased the suit property from the said Seeniammal under a registered sale deed dated 25.02.1999 and thus the plaintiff has become absolute owner of the suit property. In the suit property the defendant is not having any manner of right, title and interest and now the defendant has been making arrangements to disturb the peaceful possession and enjoyment of the plaintiff. Under the said circumstances, the present suit has been instituted for the relief sought for in the plaint.

( 3. ) IN the written statement filed on the side of the defendant it is averred that in respect of the suit property already Original Suit No.328 of 1994 has been instituted, wherein an executable decree has been obtained. The alleged vendor of the plaintiff by name Seeniammal has instituted Original Suit No.384 of 1995 and the same has been dismissed for default. It is false to say that the suit property is the absolute property of the father of the defendant. The suit property is the joint family property and therefore, the father of the defendant has had no right to execute any settlement deed in favour of the mother of the defendant by name Seeniammal and there is no merit in the suit and the same deserves to be dismissed.

( 4. ) ON the basis of the rival pleadings raised on either side, the trial Court has framed necessary issues and after analysing both the oral and documentary evidence has dismissed the suit. Against the Judgment and decree passed by the trial Court, the plaintiff as appellant has preferred Appeal Suit No.19 of 2005 on the file of the first appellate Court.

The first appellate Court after hearing both sides and upon reappraising the evidence available on record has dismissed the Appeal and thereby confirmed the Judgment and decree passed by the trial Court. Against the concurrent Judgments and decrees passed by the Courts below, the present Second Appeal has been preferred at the instance of the plaintiff as appellant.

( 5. ) AT the time of admitting the present Second Appeal the following substantial questions of law have been settled for consideration:

"(i) Whether both the Courts below are wrong in holding that the settlement deed in favour of the plaintiff vendor has not acted upon? (ii) Whether the Judgments of the lower Courts are correct in dismissed the suit and appeal without considering plaintiff/appellant is in possession of the property?

( 6. ) BEFORE contemplating the rival submissions made on either side, the Court has to narrate the rival pleadings put forth on either side and also the description of suit property. It is an admitted fact that the suit property is comprised in Survey No.2645/1 and its total extent is 80 cents. The suit property is an extent of 2025 square feet.

In the plaint it is averred that the suit property is the separate property of Ramachandran Naickar and he purchased the same under a registered sale deed dated 02.02.1963 and subsequently he settled the same in favour of his wife by name Seeniammal under a settlement deed dated 17.06.1986 and the plaintiff has purchased the same under a registered sale deed dated 25.02.1999 and thus, the plaintiff has become abso