This Second Appeal has been filed against the judgment and decree dated 30.11.2016 made in A.S.No.17 of 2015 on the file of the learned Sub Court, Bhavani confirming the judgment and decree dated 23.02.2015 made in O.S.No.154 of 2007 on the file of the learned First Additional District Munsif Court, Bhavani.

2. The Cross Objection has been filed against the judgment and decree of the learned Subordinate Judge, Bhavani in A.S.No.17 of 2015 dated 30.11.2016.

3. The appellants are the defendants in O.S.No.154 of 2007 and respondents in Cross Objection No.29 of 2018. The respondents are the plaintiffs in O.S.No.154 of 2010 and Cross Objectors in Cross Objection No.29 of 2018. The appellants are challenging the concurrent findings of the courts below. Originally, the respondents filed the suit against the appellants for declaration that adoption deed dated 20.09.1995 is void and for permanent injunction restraining the appellants from interfering with their peaceful possession and enjoyment of the suit property. Subsequently, they filed I.A.No.470 of 2009 deleting the relief of declaration. By order dated 11.12.2009, the amendment was ordered and the suit was restricted to the relief of permanent injunction only.

4(a) According to the respondents, the suit “A” schedule property was bequeathed to the parents of the first respondent by will dated 31.10.1942 by his grandfather Athi Gounder. After the death of Athi Gounder, the parents of the first respondent inherited the “A” schedule property. Further, Athi Gounder bequeathed money lending business to his second wife Palaniammal and after her death, to his daughter Vangallammal, mother of the first respondent. After death of Athi Gounder and his second wife, the mother of the first respondent became absolute owner of the money lending business also. From and out of the income derived from “A” schedule property, father of first respondent purchased “B” schedule property. The father of the first respondent was absolute owner of ½ share in “A” & “B” schedule properties and it is his separate and self-acquired property.

4(b) The mother of the first respondent, out of the income from “A” schedule property, purchased “C” schedule property in the name of first respondent by three sale deeds dated 23.06.1966, 17.09.1968 and 18.09.1968. After the death of the mother of the first respondent, sister of first respondent orally relinquished her share in the properties and received cash. The second respondent, out of her savings and amounts given by her father, purchased “D” schedule property in the name of her first son Elango by three sale deeds dated 27.11.1982, 27.03.1986 and 15.07.1987. Before they could purchase any property in the name of their second son Elavarasu, he committed suicide. The first son Elango also died in a motor accident. On the death of Elango, the second respondent became the absolute owner of the “D” schedule property. “A”, “B” and “C” schedule properties are separate properties of the first respondent. Even if it is joint family property, on the death of two sons of first respondent, the second respondent became absolute owner of 2/3rd share as their two sons were to be treated as co-parcenors. After the death of their two sons, the second respondent wanted to adopt a female child and the first respondent consented for the same.

4(c) Appellants 5 & 6 have agreed to give their daughter, the first appellant to second respondent in adoption. As per custom and usage of their community, a child has to be given in adoption before the family deity of adoptive parents. As per the said custom, on 11.09.1995, the appellants 5 & 6 jointly gave the first appellant in adoption to respondents 1 & 2 before Ayiamman Temple in Pappampalayam, Kathantanni Village, Perundurai Taluk in the presence of priests and witnesses and the same is contrary to the intention of the second respondent as she alone wanted to take the first appellant in adoption as daughter. The said adoption is cont