C.V. Karthikeyan, J.

The plaintiff in O.S. No. 1 of 2007, on the file of the Additional District Court/Fast Track Court, Thanjavur, aggrieved by the judgment and decree dated 28.08.2009, dismissing the said O.S.No.1 of 2007, has filed the present appeal.

2. O.S.No.1 of 2007 has been filed for a declaration that the plaintiff is the absolute owner of the suit property and for a consequential injunction restraining the defendants from interfering with the possession of the plaintiff. The suit property is a Plot measuring about 5455 square feet in Ward No.6, T.S.No.2063 in Kumbakonam Town, Thanjavur District. The plaintiff Suseela has claimed title over the suit property and has consequently filed the said suit seeking declaration of her title on the ground that the defendants, who are the President, Secretary and Court Committee Member of the Sourashtra Dharma Paripalana Committee, Kumbakonam, had challenged the right and title of the plaintiff over the suit property.

3. In the plaint, the plaintiff Suseela has claimed that she had purchased the property along with the adjoining property in the same Town Survey Number by a registered sale deed dated 19.07.1976 from Shri. Venugopala Naidu, who was in long and continuous possession. His father Varadaraja Naidu had put up a thatched superstructure and living there with his family. After purchase, the plaintiff along with her husband and children were living in the thatched superstructure. The total extent of the property was 6345 square feet and the thatched superstructure was about 500 square feet. Subsequently, the plaintiff purchased the western portion to an extent of 2115 square feet by means of an unregistered document dated 05.08.1989, for valuable consideration of Rs.25,000/-. The present total available area is 7235 square feet, but as stated above, the suit has been filed with respect to 5455 square feet of land. The plaintiff claimed that by means of the said two transactions she became the absolute owner. The Defendant Committee had filed a suit against one of the vendors of the plaintiff, namely, Govindaraj, who was then a minor at the time of sale. During the pendency of the suit O.S. No. 427 of 1987, the said Govindaraj died and the plaintiff's husband Durairaj was impleaded as a legal heir in the suit. He was set exparte without filing written statement and an exparte decree was passed on 23.10.1997 by the learned Principal District Munsif, Kumbakonam. The plaintiff claimed that her husband Durairaj had no right or title over the suit property and consequently had remained exparte. She further claimed that pursuant to the exparte decree an execution petition was also filed and her son Jayasankar was impleaded as party subsequent to the death of her husband in 2004. The plaintiff claimed that the defendant did not implead her and this was a deliberate exercise of fraud. It was further stated that another suit in O.S.No.428 of 1987 was filed against the plaintiff and her husband. The said suit was allowed to be dismissed for default. The plaintiff claimed that she is the absolute owner of the suit property and consequently filed the said suit claiming declaration of title and permanent injunction.

4. In the written statement filed, all the facts were disputed by the defendant. They denied each and every fact stated by the plaintiff. They further stated that the Civil Court had no jurisdiction in view of Sections 109 and 110 of the HR & CE Act. They claimed that the plaintiff had no title since her vendor did not have any title. They further claimed that purchase of property under the unregistered document would not convey any title. They further stated that as against the decree in O.S. No. 427 of 1987, Govindaraj had filed an appeal and an interlocutory application in I.A.No.155 of 1988 was also filed. It was stated that the plaintiff as the daughter-in-law of the Govindaraj cannot claim to be his legal heir when her husband was living. It was further claimed t