Mr. M. Duraiswamy, J.

The above Second Appeal arises against the Judgment and Decree passed in A.S. No. 3 of 2012, on the file of the Subordinate Court, Sivakasi, reversing the Judgment and Decree passed in O.S. No. 67 of 2009, on the file of the District Munsif Court, Sivakasi.

2. The defendants are the appellants and the respondents are the plaintiffs in the suit. The plaintiffs filed the suit in O.S. No. 67 of 2009 for permanent injunction restraining the defendants from preventing the plaintiffs from enjoying the suit property by putting up fence and construction in the suit property. The brief case of the plaintiffs is as follows:

According to the plaintiffs, the suit property and other properties originally belonged to their father Ramalingam by virtue of a partition deed of the year 1920. The said Ramalingam died in the year 1956 and after his death, the plaintiffs as his legal heirs are enjoying the property. The elder brother of the plaintiffs viz., Essakkiapillai died 25 years prior to the filing of the suit leaving behind Ramalingam, Natarajan, Sivasankaran and Mallika Deivanai as his legal heirs. The other brother of the plaintiffs viz., Ramachandran died 13 years prior to the filing of the suit leaving behind Gomathi, Kamalam, Ramalingam and Ambalavanan as his legal heirs. On 04.12.2008, when the first plaintiff went to the suit property, he saw the defendants digging pits for putting up fence. However, the first plaintiff prevented the defendants from putting up the fence and at that time, the defendants informed the first plaintiff that they purchased the property from one Radhakrishnan and that they are going to put up fence in the suit property. On enquiry, the plaintiffs came to know that one Radhakrishnan purchased the suit property from the legal heirs of Essakkiapillai on 30.01.2004. Further according to the plaintiffs Late Essakkiapillai and his legal heirs had only 1/5th share in the suit property and the plaintiffs are entitled to 4/5th share in the suit property. In these circumstances, the plaintiffs filed the suit.

3. The brief case of the defendants is as follows: According to the defendants, the plaintiffs are not entitled for the relief sought for in the suit. Radhakrishnan purchased the suit property from the original owners in the year 1994 and he has been in enjoyment of the same. In the year 2004, the said Radhakrishnan sold the suit property and other properties to the defendants and also put them in possession of the same. Since the date of purchase, the defendants are in possession and enjoyment of the suit property. The defendants are entitled to the entire property. Since the proceedings are pending under Section 47(A) of the Stamp Act, the defendants have not received the registered sale deed. The plaintiffs are not entitled to the suit property. In these circumstances, the defendants prayed for dismissal of the suit.

4. Before the trial Court, on the side of the plaintiffs, P.W.1 was examined and 8 documents viz., Exs. A.1 to A.8 were marked and there was no oral and documentary evidences on the side of the defendants. The trial Court, after taking into consideration the oral and documentary evidences let in by the plaintiffs, dismissed the suit. Aggrieved over the same, the plaintiffs preferred an appeal in A.S. No. 3 of 2012 and the lower Appellate Court reversed the judgment and decree of the trial Court and decreed the suit. Aggrieved over the judgment and decree of the lower Appellate Court, the defendants have filed the above Second Appeal.

5. Heard Mr. R. Boomirajan, learned Counsel appearing for the appellants and Mr. Nellaiappan, learned Counsel appearing for the respondents.

6. The appellants have raised the following Substantial Questions of Law in the Second Appeal:

"(A) Whether the partition deed is valid under law?

(B) Whether the plaintiff has proved the case by the oral and documentary evidence or not?

(C) Whether the suit is bad in law for non-joinder of the necessary p