The central legal point established in the judgment is the requirement for clear and unambiguous evidence to support claims of adverse possession and oral partition. The judgment emphasizes the importance of valid title and the lack of evidence to support the defendants' claims.

(Prayer: Second Appeal filed under Section 100 of C.P.C., against the judgment and Decree of the Principal Subordinate Judges Court, Thiruvannamalai passed in A.S.No.67 of 1999 dated 29.09.2001 confirming the decree and judgment of the District Munsif's Court, Thiruvannamalai passed in O.S.No.519 of 1998 dated 15.06.1999.)

1. Challenge in this second appeal is made to the judgment and Decree dated 29.09.2001 passed in A.S.No.67 of 1999 on the file of the Principal Subordinate Court, Thiruvannamalai confirming the judgment decree and dated 15.06.1999 passed in O.S.No.519 of 1998 on the file of the District Munsif Court, Thiruvannamalai.

2. The parties are referred to as per the rankings in the trial court for the sake of convenience.

3. Suit for declaration, mense profits, permanent injunction and mandatory injunction.

4. The case of the plaintiff in brief is that the plaint A schedule properties originally belonged to Dhanalakshmi ammal, the sister of the plaintiff's father Natesa Gounder by virtue of the settlement deed dated 24.08.1962 executed in her favour by her father and following the same, it is only Dhanalakshmi ammal, who has been in the possession and enjoyment of the plaint A schedule properties and Dhanalakshmi Ammal had two sons namely Durai and Udhaya Kumar and Durai died about 1 ½ years back and the sons of Dhanalakshmi ammal had no manner of right, title or interest over the plaint A schedule properties which belonged to Dhanalakshmi ammal absolutely. But, it appears that without any lawful title, they had endeavored to alienate the plaint A schedule properties to Kuppusamy Gounder, the husband and the father of the defendants 1 and 2 respectively, about two years back, however the said alienation is not valid and binding on Dhanalakshmi ammal and therefore Kuppusamy Gounder cannot claim to have derived a valid title to the plaint A schedule properties based on the sale deed executed in his favour from the persons not having the title to the plaint A schedule properties. The plaintiff has purchased the plaint A schedule properties and other properties from Dhanalakshmi Ammal by way of a registered sale deed dated 16.09.1998 for valuable consideration and however the plaintiff was unable to take the possession of the plaint A schedule properties, since they are in the unlawful possession of the defendants, hence the plaintiff has sent a legal notice calling upon the defendants and Kumar S/o, Dhanalakshmi ammal to surrender the possession of the plaint A schedule properties on 19.09.1998. The defendants did not respond to the said notice. However, Kumar has sent a reply containing false allegations, and there had never been any partition between Dhanalakshmi ammal and her two sons and the alleged partition pleaded by Kumar is invalid and hence the plaintiff is necessitated to lay the suit for appropriate reliefs as regards the plaint A schedule properties. Further according to the plaintiff, his father Natesa Gounder had purchased the plaint B schedule properties from Rajamanickam, Manicka Raj and Chinnasamy by way of a registered sale deed dated 11.12.1975 for the purpose of forming a channel to take water to the plaintiff's lands and after the purchase, he has also formed the channel in “L” shape in the said properties as depicted in the plaint plan and accordingly the plaintiff's father and the plaintiff had been using the plaint B schedule properties as abovestated and after the demise of the plaintiff's father, the plaintiff became the absolute owner of the plaint B schedule properties and enjoying the same as a channel and passage for more than the statutory period and thereby also prescribed title to the plaint B schedule properties by adverse possession. The channel in the said properties extends on the east up to the road of Rajamanickam's land. The plaintiff's husband Kuppusamy Gounder appears to have entered into an exchange transaction with the plaintiff's vendors in respect of certain lands in