Possession cannot be transferred without valid title.

1. The first and second defendants in O.S. No. 102 of 1997 on the file of the District Munsif Court, Periyakulam are the appellants. The above said suit had been filed by the plaintiff/R. Rathakrishnan against two defendants/N. Palaniandavar and N. Kandhappa Nathan, seeking a Judgment and Decree for permanent injunction from interference with his peaceful possession and enjoyment of the suit property.

2. The suit property is vacant land measuring 18, sq. ft. less than three cents in R.S. No. 2052/2006, OS No. 56, Subramanya Barathi Street, Ward-5, Pazhanichettipatti, Veerapandi Village, Theni Sub-District, Periyakulam District.

3. This suit was dismissed by Judgment and Decree dated 21.07.2004. Challenging that, the plaintiff had filed A.S. No. 135 of 2004 which came up for consideration before the Subordinate Court, Periyakulam. By Judgment and Decree dated 29.07.2005, the appeal was allowed and the Judgment of the trial Court was set aside and the suit was decreed. Challenging that Judgment, the defendants have filed the present Second appeal.

4. O.S. No. 102 of 1997 - District Munsif Court, Periyakulam:

The plaintiff claimed that the suit property was natham promboke vacant land. It was under the possession of Vairammal @ Sadaiyalammal wife of Sivasubramanian, Pazhanichettipatti, Theni Taluk. She was in possession of the property. 'B' memo was granted to her by the Revenue Inspector of Theni. It was stated that she had also gained title through possession. The plaintiff had purchased the suit property from Vairammal @ Sadaiyalammal on 21.05.1997 for a total consideration of Rs. 31,300/- (Rupees Thirty One Thousand Three Hundred Only). The defendants attempted to interfere with his peaceful possession. Consequently, the above said suit had been filed, seeking permanent injunction against the defendants from interfering with possession.

5. The defendants filed their written statement. It was stated that Sadaiyalammal did not have another name called Vairammal. They stated that Sadaiyalammal was actually their sister. Vairammal was their mother. The property originally belonged to their grand father Anantha Vayiru Chettiar. After his death, it devolved to his daughter Vairammal. Thereafter the defendants, on her death, took possession of the property as her inheritors. It had been stated that Sadaiyalammal attempted to deal with the property and also sought partition. Consequently, the defendants had issued an advocate notice on 29.06.1997. It was replied by notice dated 04.06.1997 claiming Sadaiyalammal to be in possession. The defendants therefore stated that the claim of the plaintiff that he had purchased the property on 21.05.1997 cannot be true. They claimed that they were in possession of the suit property. They stated that the suit should be dismissed.

6. The defendants also filed an additional written statement again reiterating the said facts and also stating that grant of 'B' memo to Sadaiyalammal was against law and that the document had no value. They stated that the property belonged to their mother Vairammal and thereafter it had devolved to them. They also stated that Vairammal executed a Will dated 05.04.1991. They claimed that the suit should be dismissed.

7. On the basis of the above pleadings, the learned District Munsif, Periyakulam framed the following issues for trial.

1. Whether the plaint schedule property belonged to Sadaiyalammal prior to the sale in favour of the plaintiff?

2. Whether the plaintiff is entitled to permanent injunction?

3. To what relief the plaintiff is entitled?

The learned District Munsif, Periyakulam framed additional issue is as follows:

1. Whether the alleged Will is a genuine one?

8. During trial, the plaintiff examined himself as PW-1 and marked Ex.A.1, original sale deed executed by Vairammal @ Sadaiyalammal dated 21.05.1997. Kamala Kannan S/o Sadaiyalammal was examined as PW-2 and 'B' memo was marked as Ex.A.2. On the side of the defendants, the second defendant was examined as D