The main legal point established in the judgment is that the plaintiff's establishment of right, title, and possession to the suit properties was sufficient to uphold the lower appellate court's decision.

Defendants 3 to 5 in a suit for declaration of title and delivery of possession have filed this Second Appeal challenging the judgment and decree dated 27.04.2006 in A.S. No. 47 of 2005 passed by the II Additional Subordinate Judge, Chengalpattu, wherein and by which the suit was decreed reversing the judgment and decree dated 27.10.2004 passed by the District Munsif, Alandur, in O.S. No. 2985 of 1997.

2. The case, in brief, of the plaintiff is that one Raghava Reddy, who was the original owner of 'A' Schedule cultivable land measuring an extent of 2.04 Acres, bequeathed the same to his daughters one Vijayalakshmi and Lokanayaki under his last Will dated 26.02.1914. It is stated that the plaintiff, being the only daughter of Vijayalakshmi, had inherited 50% of the interest in the 'A' Schedule properties while Lokanayaki had bequeathed her interest in 'A' Schedule to her under her Will dated 10.02.1975 and thus, the plaintiff became entitled to the entire 'A' Schedule property for which he was granted Ryotwari patta. Subsequently, the plaintiff had laid out 'A' Schedule property into plots in which the northern portion measuring two grounds was laid into a shopping plot which is described as 'C' Schedule. The first defendant owned lands to the west of 'C' Schedule which is described as 'B' Schedule. While so, defendants 3 to 5 issued notice dated 18.3.1985 claiming to have purchased the plots from the defendants 1 and 2 in 'C' Schedule property and also attempted to enter into 'C' Schedule property. According to the plaintiff, the property owned by the first defendant is situate in S.Nos. 268/1 and 268/2, ie., west of 'A' Schedule preperty and that she never owned the 'C' Schedule property which is comprised in S.No. 269/1. In such circumstance, the suit came to be filed seeking for declaration of title to the plaintiff to the 'C' Schedule property and for grant of injunction restraining the defendants from interfering with the plaintiff's peaceful possession and enjoyment of 'C' Schedule property, in the alternative, to grant a relief of vacant possession of 'C' Schedule property and for future mesne profits.

3. Resisting the suit, the second defendant filed written statement denying the allegations made by the plaintiff. According to him, he has been in possession and enjoyment of the 'A' Schedule as well as 'C' Schedule properties and subsequently, he sold 'C' Schedule property to defendants 3 to 5. It is contended that the plaintiff has no title to the 'C' Schedule property nor is in possession of the same and hence, the suit as framed for declaration and injunction is not sustainable.

4. The third defendant filed a separate written statement denying the averments made by the plaintiff. According to the third defendant, the first defendant was in absolute possession and enjoyment of the 'A' Schedule property and subsequently, sold a portion of the same to him and from then onwards, he has been in possession and enjoyment of the 'C' Schedule property. So saying, he sought for dismissal of the suit.

5. Reiterating the averments made in the written statement filed the third defendant, defendants 3 to 5 filed an additional written statement stating that though all the paimash numbers had been given corresponding survey numbers, the plaintiff has purposely failed to give the survey numbers and the extent of each survey number equivalent to the paimash number.

6. The sixth defendant also resisted the suit by filing a written statement stating that he has nothing to do with this case.

7. Before the trial Court, the plaintiff Hemantharaj examined himself as P.W.1 besides examining one Dulasitharan and Sivadass as P.W.2 and P.W.3 respectively and marked Exs. A.1 to A.34. On the side of the defendants, the defendants 2 and 3 examined themselves as D.Ws. 1 and 2 and Exs. B.1 to B.10 were marked. Exs. C.1 to C.6 were marked as Court documents.

8. The trial Court, after considering the pleadings, evidence and the issues elabor