1. The defendants 4, 14 to 18, in this second appeal, have challenged the judgment and decree dated 27.01.2011 made in A.S.No.55/2010 on the file of the Sub Court, Poonamallee, confirming the judgment and decree dated 26.04.2010 made in O.S.No.383 of 1986 on the file of the Principal District Munsif, Poonamallee.

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

3. The second appeal has been admitted and the following substantial question of law is formulated for consideration in this second appeal

"Whether the finding of the lower appellate court that the plaintiff had proved to be the adopted son of Arumuga Naicker is perverse"

4. Claiming to be the adopted son of Arumuga Naicker, the plaintiff has come forward with the present suit seeking appropriate reliefs. It is not in dispute that the suit properties belonged to Arumuga Naicker. Kalaichiammal is the wife of Arumuga Naicker. It is not in dispute that Arumuga Naicker and Kalaichiammal have no issue. Now, according to the plaintiff, he has been taken in adoption by Arumuga Naicker and Kalaichiammal, when he was aged about 6 months and the adoption issue was mooted by Arumuga Naicker's