The main legal point established in the judgment is the importance of valid title deeds and detailed pleadings and documents to support a claim to possession, as well as the court's discretion in granting possessory relief based on established title.

The appellants are the legal representatives of the deceased plaintiff. This appeal is directed against the concurrent findings of the courts below dismissing the suit for declaration of title and delivery of possession.

2. The parties are described as per their rank and status shown in the original suit.

3. The facts leading to the second appeal are as follows:

The case of the plaintiff is that, he purchased the first item of property mentioned in the 'A' schedule from one Jayammal through sale deed dated 13.02.1974. The second item of the property mentioned in the 'A' schedule is situated on the North of the first item of the property. This property belongs to his father Krishnasamy Reddiar. During his life time, Krishnasamy Reddiar sold the second item of the property orally to the plaintiff. To the East of the second item of the property in the 'A' schedule, the ancestral property is situated with a house and garden. In the year 1965, the plaintiff remodeled his ancestral house. Krishnasamy Reddiar had a concubine by name Ammachi Ammal. Defendants 1 and 2 are the daughters of the said Ammachi Ammal. Krishnasamy Reddiar bequeathed a portion of his property at Alagramam to Ammachi Ammal and her daughters by way of a Will. They have no right over the other properties of Krishnasamy Reddiar. The plaintiff constructed a hut in the second item of the property, which is the 'B' schedule property. The plaintiff permitted defendants 1 and 2 to reside in the 'B' schedule property on the undertaking from defendants 1 and 2 to vacate it as and when the plaintiff requires it. When the plaintiff demanded 'B' schedule property, defendants 1 and 2 are making untenable claim over the property. Hence, the suit for declaration of title and delivery of possession.

4. Defendants 1 and 2 denying the plaint averments contended that, their mother Ammachi Ammal is the legally wedded wife of Krishnasamy Reddiar. They are the children of Krishnasamy Reddiar born through his second wife Ammachi Ammal. Krishnasamy Reddiar, during his life time, gave away items 1 and 2 of the suit 'A' schedule properties to Ammachi Ammal for her enjoyment absolutely. The 'B' schedule hut in the second item of the 'A' schedule was constructed by Krishnasamy Reddiar and he made his wife Ammachi Ammal and her daughters to reside in it. Admittedly, from 1972, they are residing in the 'B' schedule property, so, the suit is barred by limitation. After the death of Krishnasamy Reddiar, the entire 'A' schedule property devolved upon the defendants 1 and 2 absolutely. They are continuously in enjoyment and possession, thereby, prescribed title over the property. They have annexed the poramboke land lying on south of the suit property in S.No.145/2 and they are enjoying that portion also. Therefore, the plaintiff has no right over the strip of poramboke land or the suit schedule properties.

5. The 3rd defendant is first wife of Krishnasamy Reddiar and the mother of the plaintiff. Defendants 4 and 5 are the daughters of the 3rd defendant. In their written statement, defendants 3 to 5 have supported the case of the plaintiff and had recorded their 'no objection' to pass the decree in favour of the plaintiff, without cost.

6. After considering the plaint, written statements, additional written statements and reply statements, the trial Court, framed 11 issues and 8 additional issues; marked 54 documents as Exs.A1 to A54; examined 2 witnesses on the side of plaintiff as P.W.1 and P.W.2; marked 17 documents as Exs.B1 to B17; examined 5 witnesses on the side of the defendants as D.W.1 to D.W.5; and marked 2 documents on the side of the Court as Exs.C1 and C2. After considering the oral and documentary evidence, the trial Court dismissed the suit against the plaintiff. Aggrieved by that judgment, the plaintiff preferred appeal and the first appellate Court dismissed the appeal by confirming the judgment of the trial Court.

7. Aggrieved by the concurrent finding, the plaintiff has pr