1. The present appeal is preferred against the judgment and decree dated 30.8.2005 passed in A.S. No. 37 of 1999 on the file of the Subordinate Judge, Cheyyar, reversing the judgment and decree dated 30.9.1997 passed by the Additional District Munsif, Cheyyar, Tiruvannamalai, O.S. No. 38 of 1990.

2. The second defendant in the suit is the appellant and the suit is for declaration of title and for permanent injunction restraining the defendants from interfering with the peaceful possession and enjoyment of the plaintiff.

3. The case of the plaintiff is that the suit property belonged to the plaintiff's father and the plaintiff is the son of first wife and the first defendant is the son of second wife. After the death of their father, the plaintiff and the first defendant were enjoying the property and divided among themselves on 29.12.1983 at the instance of Panchayatdars. The suit property fell to the share of the plaintiff and he has been enjoying the same in his own rights. When the defendants started troubling the plaintiff in his enjoyment of the suit property in a peaceful manner, the suit was filed.

4. Resisting the suit, the defendants filed written statement denying the averments made by the plaintiff. The first defendant though married, was not living with his wife. The second defendant is living with the first defendant. The defendants claimed right to the suit property under Koor chit dated 17.7.1961.

5. Before the trial Court, the plaintiff examined himself as P.W.1 and marked Exs. A.1 to A.17 while the second defendant examined herself as D.W.1 besides examining two more witnesses as D.W.2 and D.W.3 and marked Exs. B.1 to B.13.

6. After the trial, the trial Court dismissed the suit. Aggrieved, the plaintiff had filed A.S. No. 37 of 1999 on the file of the Sub-Court, Cheyyar. The First Appellate Court after consideration of facts and law, reversed the judgment of the trial Court and decreed the suit allowing the appeal. Aggrieved by the same, the above appeal is filed by the second defendant.

7. At the time of admission of this Second Appeal, the following substantial questions of law were framed for consideration:-

(i) Whether Ex.A.18 Koor Chit in which joint family properties of the plaintiff and the first defendant were partitioned by metes and bounds require registration under Section 17(1)(b) of the Registration Act and whether the same could be received in evidence and relied upon without registration?

(ii) Whether Ex.A.18 Koor Chit is genuine and valid in law when the same was not produced before the trial Court and the same was proved in the manner known to law?

(iii) Whether in law, the Judgment and decree passed by the first appellate Court are valid when admittedly the contesting first defendant died during the pendency of the appeal the petitions to bring his legal representatives on record were dismissed?

8. Now, the question that has to be decided is Question No. 3 extracted above. If the above issue is decided in favour of the appellant, the suit has to be dismissed.

9. Before proceeding on the merits of the case, Mr. P.Mani, learned counsel appearing for the appellant brought to the notice of this Court that during the pendency of the appeal, the first defendant Subramanian, who is the first respondent in A.S. No. 37 of 1999 died. Therefore, the plaintiff / sole respondent herein and who was the appellant in A.S. No. 37 of 1999 filed I.A. No. 12 of 2001 for condonation of delay in setting aside the abatement caused due to the death of the first respondent therein along with the applications to set aside the abatement and bring the legal heirs of the deceased first respondent therein, on record.

10. From the materials available on record, it is seen that the said Interlocutory Application for condonation of delay was dismissed on 01.10.2002 by the Sub-Court, Cheyyar, and the plaintiff / appellant therein had not preferred any revision against the dismissal of the same. During the course of hearing, lear