Failure to establish genealogy and authenticity of certificates led to the rejection of the claim for declaration of title.

JUDGMENT :

(Prayer: Second Appeal filed under Section 100 of Civil Procedure Code, against the judgment and decree dated 04.02.2016 made in A.S.No.23 of 2012 on the file of the Subordinate Judge, Ranipet, Vellore District, reversing the judgment and decree dated 23.12.2011 made in O.S.No.18 of 2008 on the file of the District Munsif (Conferment of Criminal Jurisdiction) Ranipet, Vellore.)

1. Challenge in this Second Appeal is made to the judgment and decree dated 04.02.2016 passed in A.S.No.23 of 2012 on the file of the Subordinate Court, Ranipet, Vellore District, reversing the judgment and decree dated 23.12.2011 passed in O.S.No.18 of 2008 on the file of the District Munsif Court, (Conferment of Criminal Jurisdiction) Ranipet, Vellore.

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

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

4. The case of the plaintiff, in brief, is that the plaintiff is one among the legal heirs of the deceased Salukkan @ Irusan and Salukkan died on 07.03.1970, leaving behind his three sons, namely, Ethiraj, Parthasarathy and Chinnapaiyyan to succeed to his properties and his three sons are also no more and they had died leaving behind their legal heirs as detailed in the plaint. The plaintiff is the one of the daughters of the deceased Parthasarathy and all the legal-heirs of the abovesaid three sons of Salukkan @ Irusan had given the general power of attorney deed to the plaintiff to conduct the case on their behalf also and the plaint schedule property was purchased by Salukkan @ Irusan by way of the sale deed dated 30.10.1928 and enjoying the same and after his death, enjoyed by his three sons and thereafter, by the legal heirs of the abovesaid three sons and the defendant is not at all related to the plaintiff in any manner and she has encroached into the suit property and attempted to construct some building in the same without any authority and in this connection, the plaintiff had given police complaint, but, the police had failed to take any action and hence the need for the suit for appropriate reliefs.

5. The defendant resisted the plaintiff's suit contending that the plaintiff is not the owner of the suit property and not the legal heir of Arunagiri's family. Arunagiri had two sons, namely, Salukkan @ Irusan and Periakulandai and both had executed a possessory mortgage deed to one Annammal, wife of Kuppan on 11.12.1944 in respect of the property comprised in survey No.292/2A 5 cents and 292/4A 8 cents and Salukkan @ Irusan died intestate and he has no issues and his brother Periakulandai is the only legal heir and became entitled to the property. The children of Periakulandai and his wife Muniammal are Venugopal, Perumal, Samikannu and daughters by name Visalakshi and Annammal, Perumal's wife is also Annammal and her three daughters are Soundari, Amudha (the defendant ) and Padavettal. Samikannu's wife is Chandra and they had five children and the legalheirship certificate and the death certificate projected by the plaintiff had been manipulated for the purpose of the case. The defendant, as the legal heir of Perumal, inherited the property through her father and the property is surrounded by a compound wall put up by the defendant. Previously there was a hut in the suit property, which was later converted into cement sheet building for residential purpose and the defendant has been in the possession and enjoyment of the property for more than 15 years without any interruption. The plaintiff is living in the North Street in Jayaram Nagar and the defendant is living in the suit property and no enquiry had taken place in the village before recording the legal-heirship certificates and the death certificates projected by the plaintiff and that the said certificates are not binding upon the defendant and the same have to be established by the plaintiff beyond any doubt and the plaintiff has never been in the possession an