Challenge in this second appeal is made by the first defendant against the judgement and decree dated 27.10.2010 made in A.S.No.7 of 2006 on the file of the Subordinate Court, Thiruvellore, confirming the judgement and decree dated 29.07.2005 made in O.S.No.158 of 1992 on the file of the District Munsif Court, Thiruttani.

2. The suit has been laid for declaration and permanent injunction.

3. The case of the plaintiffs, in brief, is as follows:

The defendants 2 and 3 are the father and mother of the plaintiffs 1 to 3. The 4th defendant is the brother of the second defendant. The plaintiffs 1 to 3 are minors and are represented by their paternal aunt R.Gethari, who is the sister of the defendants 2 &4. The suit property and other properties originally belonged to Kamakshiammal wife of C.V. Rajamanickam Mudaliar of Kalambakkam village. Kamakshiammal executed a registered Will dated 13.02.1976 bequeathing life interest in the suit property to the second defendant together with a vacant site therein. Under the above said Will, the second defendant has got only life interest in the suit property and the vested remainder belongs to the plaintiffs. The second defendant has no right to alienate or encumber the suit property. Kamakshiammal died on 30.04.1977 and after her death, the Will dated 13.02.1976 came into effect. For the past five years, the second defendant and his wife, the third defendant started exhibiting hostile attitude towards the interest of the plaintiffs and the plaintiffs are under the care and protection of their paternal aunt R. Gethari alias Gouri. The defendants 2 and 3 seem to have sold the suit property to the 4th defendant under document No.1219/1987 dated 27.08.1997 and in turn, the 4th defendant sold the suit property to the first defendant under a registered document No.300/1988 dated 09.03.1988. The second defendant has no right to execute such sale deed dated 27.08.1987. So, the sale deeds dated 27.08.1987 and 09.03.1988 are not valid in law and they are not binding on the plaintiffs. The plaintiffs issued a lawyer's notice dated 18.03.1991 to the defendants 1, 2 and 4 and the defendants have not responded to the same. The first defendant has made an application to the 5th defendant for transfer of patta and the plaintiffs gave notice to the 5th defendant under Section 80 CPC asking him not to transfer patta in favour of the first defendant. Hence, the suit.

4. The case of the first defendant, in brief, is as follows:

The suit is not maintainable either in law or on facts. The suit laid by R.Gethari alias Gouri as next friend is not maintainable, since the father and mother of the plaintiffs are alive and they are under the care and protection of their parents. It is true that the properties originally belonged to Kamakshiammal and she has executed a Will dated 13.02.1976. It is false to state that the second defendant was given only life interest in the suit property with a vacant site and that, the vested remainder has been given to the plaintiffs and that, the second defendant has no right to alienate or encumber the suit property. It is false to state that for the past five years, the defendants 2 and 3 have been exhibiting hostile attitude towards the interest of the plaintiffs and that, the plaintiffs are under the care and protection of their paternal aunt R.Gethari alias Gouri. The plaintiffs are under the care and protection of the defendants 2 & 3 and the suit has been laid at the instigation of the defendants 2 & 3. The second defendant has got absolute right with powers of alienation under the Will dated 13.02.1976 and the plaintiffs cannot question the alienation of the suit property by the second defendant. It is false to state that the defendants 2 & 3 have no right to execute the sale deed and the same is not binding on the plaintiffs. The second defendant has got absolute right over the suit property and he had sold the same to the fourth defendant and in turn, the 4th defendant had