The central legal point established in the judgment is the validity of adoption under the Hindu Adoptions and Maintenance Act, 1956 and the entitlement of the adopted son to inherit the property.

Challenge in this second appeal is made by the defendants 1 & 2 against the judgment and decree dated 29.01.2010 made in A.S.No.8 of 2009 on the file of the Subordinate Court, Neyveli, confirming the judgment and decree dated 27.11.2008 made in O.S.No.23 of 2005 on the file of the District Munsif-cum-Judicial Magistrate, Neyveli.

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

3. The averments contained in the plaint, in brief, are stated as follows:

The suit property belonged to Murugesa Padayachi as his ancestral property and he was employed in NLC and died on 06.06.1982 leaving his wife Saradhambal as his sole heir. They have no issues. The plaintiff's mother Kasiammal is the younger sister of Saradhambal. As Saradhambal and Murugesa Padayachi did not have any issues, they brought up the children of Kasiammal as their own children. After the death of Murugesa Padayachi, Saradhambal expressed her desire to take her sister's son viz., the plaintiff in adoption and Kasiammal was willing to give the plaintiff in adoption to Sardhambal, at that time, the plaintiff's natural father Ilangovan was not alive and accordingly, on 25.08.1988, Kasiammal gave the plaintiff in adoption to her sister Saradhambal and the adoption took place and Datta Homam was performed and from that moment onwards, the plaintiff became the adopted son of Saradhambal. Later, on 21.06.1991, the deed of adoption was executed by Saradhambal and Kasiammal. It is to evidence the adoption that took place on 25.08.1988 and thus, the plaintiff is the only heir to the estate of Saradhambal. After the death of Murugesan and later, after the death of Saradhambal, the plaintiff, as their only legal heir, is entitled to succeed to the suit property. Further, there is a decree in O.S.No.1298 of 1990, wherein, the plaintiff's status, as the adopted son of Saradhambal, has been declared. The suit “A” schedule property is a patta land and after the death of Murgesa Padayachi, patta was transferred to the name of his wife Saradhambal and under the Natham Survey also, patta was granted to Saradhambal. It was originally in sub-division No.9 in Survey No.234 and during the Natham Survey in 2001, the sub-division was changed to 5A. Subsequently, patta was also granted in favour of the plaintiff. Thus, the plaintiff has been in possession and enjoyment of the suit property. The property, to the North of the suit property namely Survey No.234/4, belonged to the second defendant and there are two survey stones on the East and West to show the boundary line of the plaintiff's property dividing the property of the second defendant. During the Natham Survey, Dhanasekaran got patta for the property situated to the North of the suit property. The plaintiff has been residing in the residential house put up in the “A” Schedule property for more than 35 years. While re-building his house, the second defendant unlawfully encroached into the plaintiff's property to a breadth of one metre and length of six metres and thereby, interfered with the plaintiff's possession and enjoyment of the suit property. The portion encroached by the second defendant has been described as “B” Schedule property. The second defendant has subsequently sold the property to the first defendant giving false measurements. Inasmuch as the first defendant has no right over the “B” schedule property and illegally put up construction on the same, the plaintiff has been constrained to lay the suit.

4. The avernments, in the written statement filed by the second defendant and adopted by the first defendant, are as follows:

The suit is not maintainable either in law or on facts. After denying all the allegations contained in the plaint, according to the defendants, the second defendant, one Dhanalakshmi and Rajendran are brothers and sister, who are the children of Murugesa Padayachi's elder brother and as Murugesan and Saradhamabal did not have any issues, Murugesan looked after the second defendan