S.S. Sundar, J.

1. The plaintiff in the suit in O.S. No. 75 of 1996 (Originally O.S. No. 1020 of 1993) on the file of the Sub Court, Palani, is the appellant in this Second Appeal.

2. The plaintiff/appellant has filed the suit in O.S. No. 75 of 1996 against the respondents herein for declaration of title and for recovery of possession in respect of the suit property which is a small piece of land measuring 19 feet x 22 feet with a residential building.

3. The case of the plaintiff as set out in the plaint are as follows:

3.1. The property, namely, vacant land measuring 31 feet x 155 feet was purchased by the plaintiff under a registered sale deed dated 11.06.1949. The plaintiff also constructed three small houses in the property. The said property was purchased by the plaintiff out of his own funds. However, the elder brother of the plaintiff one Janakiraman Pillai, who had no issues, requested the plaintiff to permit him to reside in the houses constructed by the plaintiff in 1969. Since the plaintiff's brother was issue less and he was affectionate towards the children of the plaintiff, the plaintiff permitted his elder brother to reside in the house which was constructed by him in the southern portion of the property purchased by him. From 1969, the plaintiff's brother Janakiraman Pillai was residing there only on the permission of the plaintiff.

3.2. Though the plaintiff permitted his brother to pay property tax etc., in the name of the plaintiff, the plaintiff came to know that his brother had changed the assessment in his name without the knowledge of the plaintiff. It came to the knowledge of the plaintiff only when the plaintiff made an attempt to pay the property tax after the death of his elder brother Janakiraman Pillai. After the death of the plaintiff's brother Janakiraman Pillai, the first defendant, who is none else than the son of another brother of the plaintiff one Marimuthu has illegally occupied the residential house and refused to vacate the property despite the plaintiff's attempt to get the house from the first defendant without any force. The second defendant was impleaded, as the appellant has also prayed for a mandatory injunction directing the second defendant to change the property tax assessment in the name of plaintiff.

4. The suit was contested by the first defendant and the case of the first respondent herein in the written statement are as follows:

4.1. The sale deed dated 11.06.1949 is admitted. Though the plaintiff's father one Kalimuthu Pillai did not have any resources, the entire family consisting of plaintiff, his two brothers and the father was living only with the earnings of plaintiff's elder brother Janakiraman Pillai. The suit property was purchased by the said Janakiraman Pillai in the name of the plaintiff for the benefit of the family. The plaintiff did not construct the three houses. The three houses were constructed by the joint efforts of the three brothers and they were in enjoyment. In or about 1965, there was a oral partition by which the southern most suit house was allotted to Janakiraman Pillai, the plaintiff's elder brother. The property tax assessment was also made in the name of said Janakiraman Pillai from the year 1969. Janakiraman Pillai was, therefore, enjoying the suit house as his own property continuously by paying property tax and kist for more than the statutory period.

4.2. After the partition and division of properties amongst the three brothers, Janakiraman Pillai constructed a pucca house in the suit property and he was living in the thatched shed put up in the upstairs of the house. The electricity service connection was obtained in the name of Janakiraman Pillai and the new service connection number is 638, which was also in the name of Janakiraman Pillai. After the death of Janakiraman Pillai, on 23.10.1986, the first defendant is entitled to all the assets of Janakiraman Pillai as Janakiraman Pillai had adopted the first defendant and brought up the