The Second Appeal has arisen out of the judgment and decree dated 19.12.1991 in A.S.No.26 of 1986 on the file of the learned Subordinate Judge of Devakottai, confirming the judgment and decree dated 14.02.1986 in O.S.No.184 of 1984 on the file of the District Munsif Court, Devakottai.

2. The appellant is the first defendant in O.S.No.184 of 1984 and first appellant in A.S.No.26 of 1986, who lost in both the Courts below. One Vinaitheerthan Chettiar was the plaintiff. Respondents 1 to 6, who are the legal heirs of the said Vinaitheerthan Chettiar, were impleaded as respondents 2 to 7 in A.S.No.26 of 1986. Respondents 7 to 10 are the defendants 2 to 5 in O.S.No.184 of 1984 and appellants 2 to 5 in A.S.No.26 of 1986. Pending second appeal, sixth respondent died and respondents 1 to 5 are recorded as legal heirs of the deceased sixth respondent. Ninth respondent died and respondents 11 to 17 are brought on record as his legal heirs. The parties are referred to as per their ranks in the suit.

3. The plaintiff is the son of one Subban through his third wife Deivanai. The first and second wife of Subban are Veerayi and Umayal and they did not have any children. The said Subban died 43 years ago at the time of filing of the suit. After the death of Subban, the plaintiff, who is the only son of Subban inherited the property and patta No.415 was issued to him. He is paying tax and he is in possession of the property. He has mortgaged the property and borrowed money from the Government. He has cultivated cashew trees, which are 17 years old. Before that, plaintiff was cultivating the land by punja crops. For more than the statutory period, the plaintiff is in possession of the property to the knowledge of all. His father died before the Hindu Women's Rights to Property Act, 1937 and therefore, two wives of Subban did not get any right in the agricultural lands. They did not have any right to sell the property. The defendants purchased the portion of the suit property from the second wife Umayal. The second wife of Subban and defendants 2 and 3 added their names in patta No.415 from the fasili 1393. The plaintiff gave a petition to the Tahsildar, Karaikudi. The said petition was dismissed with a direction to the plaintiff to approach the competent Civil Court for his relief. Based on the patta, defendants 2 to 5 sold 1/3 undivided share to the first defendant. In 1984, the defendants informed the plaintiff that they are going to encroach the suit property. The defendants are not having any right and title in the suit property. Even if the step mother of plaintiff had any share in the suit property, after the death of his stepmothers, plaintiff acquired right to the entire property. The plaintiff, in the circumstance, filed the suit for declaration and injunction.

4. The first defendant filed written statement and denied the averments made in the plaint. The first defendant submitted that Veerayi and Umayal alone are legally wedded wives of Subban. The plaintiff's mother Deivanai was only concubine of Subban. The first two wives Veerayi and Umayal agreed for Subban to have Deivanai as concubine only after Subban agreed to give 1/3rd share each in the properties of Subban. The plaintiff is not the son of legally wedded wife of Subban and therefore, he is not having any share in the suit property. After the death of Subban, plaintiff requested Veerayi and Umayal to declare him as son of Subban. They agreed for the same and a family arrangement was made and in the said family arrangement, 1/3 each shares of Veerayi and Umayal was confirmed and balance 1/3 share was allotted to the plaintiff. The plaintiff in the circumstance cannot question the title and the shares of Veerayi and Umayal. Other properties were enjoyed by Veerayi, Umayal, plaintiff and his mother jointly. It is not correct to state that the plaintiff is in entire possession of the suit property. Cashew saplings were planted by first defendant and they are six to seven ye