JUDGMENT :

T. Ravindran, J.

1. In this Second Appeal, challenge is made to the judgment and decree dated 31.08.2015 passed in C.A.S. No. 64 of 2014 on the file of the Subordinate Court, Vellore reversing the judgment and decree dated 24.09.2014 passed in O.S. No. 863 of 2009 on the file of the District Munsif Court, Katpadi, Vellore District.

2. For the sake of convenience, the parties are referred to as per their rankings in the trial court.

3. Suit for declaration and permanent injunction.

4. The case of the plaintiffs, in brief, is that one Narayana Mandiri and Arputhammal had three sons, namely, Pandurangan (first defendant), Krishnan, Kannaboss (plaintiff) and one daughter by name Kanniammal and all the abovesaid members constituted joint Hindu family and during the year 1960, Narayana Mandiri died intestate leaving behind his wife, three sons and daughter to succeed to his property in survey No. 693/1A with a well with an extent of 2.38 cents. After the demise of Narayana Mandiri, his legal heirs continued in joint family status without division of the properties and the first defendant, being the eldest member, acted as the kartha of the family and out of the income derived from the joint family nucleus and also by pledging the plaintiff's mother's jewels of five sovereigns during the year 1969, the suit property was purchased by the joint family for a valid consideration in the name of the first defendant, he being the kartha of the joint family and since then the members of the joint family were enjoying the suit property and the suit property had acquired the character of the joint family property and the members of the joint family were unable to continue to enjoy the family properties unitedly and as a result, effected partition of the joint family properties on 30.03.1982 in the presence of the witnesses and in the abovesaid partition, the suit property and the other joint family properties were allotted to the plaintiff's share as per the partition deed effected on 30.03.1982 and since then, it is only the plaintiff who has been in the possession and enjoyment of the shares allotted to him in the abovesaid partition including the suit property by paying kists etc., and however, as regards the suit property, the patta had not been transferred in the name of the plaintiff despite his request to the revenue officials with reference to the same and the revenue officials colluded with the first defendant acted adversely against the plaintiff and hence, the plaintiff had submitted a petition during the year 2002 to include the suit property in the patta issued to him, but, due to non cooperation of the first defendant, no further order has been passed in the above-said petition and despite the same, it is only the plaintiff, who has been in the possession and enjoyment of the suit property as the absolute owner beyond the statutory period to the knowledge of the defendants and therefore, the defendants are estopped from questioning his right, title and interest in respect of the suit property and the defendants, without any authority, are attempting to disturb the plaintiff's possession and enjoyment of the suit property and also created the sale deeds in their names and hence, according to the plaintiff, he has been necessitated to levy the suit against the defendant for appropriate reliefs.

5. The defendants resisted the said suit contending that the suit laid by the plaintiff is not maintainable either in law or on facts. The allegation that after the demise of the father, the plaintiff's mother and his brothers continued in the joint family status without division of the properties and that the first defendant has been acting as the kartha of the joint family and that out of the joint family nucleus and by pledging their mother's jewels, the suit property had been acquired in the name of the first defendant as the kartha of the joint family and since then, the suit property has been in the possession and enjoyment of the