JUDGMENT :

N. SESHASAYEE, J.

Prayer: Second Appeal filed under Section 100 of the Code of the Civil Procedure against the judgment and decree dated 01.10.2013 made in A.S. No. 41 of 2009 on the file of the Sub Court, Pudukottai in confirming the judgment and decree of District Munsif Court, Pudukottai dated 23.4.2009 made in O.S. No. 310/2007.

1. The defendants are the appellants herein. The suit was laid for declaration, declaring the title of the plaintiffs and for a consequential relief of injunction.

2.1 Before adverting into the rival contentions that gave rise to the cause of action for the suit, a few preludial facts that led to the litigation, whose factual correctness is not questioned, may be stated:-

(i) One Arumuga Thevar was possessed of extensive properties, and one of the properties he possessed was a plot of 14.26 acres of dry land in S. No. 140 of Karukakurichi Village, Alangudi Taluk, Pudukkottai District. This is the subject matter of the suit.

(ii) Arumuga Thevar was married twice, first to one Subbulakshmi Ammal, and thereafter to a certain Malarkodi. Through Subbulakshmi Ammal, he did not have any issue, while he had a daughter Ramamirtham, through his second wife Malarkodi. Arumuga Thevar had a brother and his son was one Karthikeyan. In the build-up to the present litigation, Arumugha Thevar's daughter Ramamirtham and his nephew Karthikeyan may be considered as the main characters, whereas Ramamirtham's mother Malarkodi (the second wife of Arumugha Thevar) played relatively a lesser role.

(iii) Arumuga Thevar died on 24.02.1979 and his estate, including the suit property was succeeded to by his widow Subbulakshmi and his daughter Ramamirtham.

(iv) Be that as it may, Arumuga Thevar's nephew Karthikeyan claimed that Subbulakshmi Ammal, widow of Arumuga Thevar, had executed a settlement deed dated 27.02.1984. (This document is not produced in this case.) That deed deals with few of the properties of Arumugha Thevar, to which Subbulakshmi Ammal had succeeded to. He also claimed that he is the adopted son of Arumugha Thevar.

(v) Claiming title to part of Arumugha Thevar's estate both as his adopted son, and part of his widow's right under the settlement deed of Subbalakshmi Ammal, Karthikeyan filed O.S. No. 55 of 1986 against Ramamirtham and another, for partition before the Sub Court, Pattukottai. In that suit, the present suit property was scheduled as Item No. 26 in the plaint schedule.

(vi) O.S. No. 55 of 1986, was partly decreed, when the Court accepted only the settlement deed, but not Karthikeyan's contention that he was the adopted son of Arumugha Thevar, and granted preliminary decree for partition for the property covered the settlement deed of Subbulakshmi.

(vii) Both Ramamirtham and Karthikeyan felt aggrieved by the decree passed to the extent it went against their respective claim or interest and respectively preferred A.S. No. 953 of 1997 and A.S. No. 464 of 1998 before this Court.

(viii) Be that as it may, it is now necessary to introduce about the Will that Subbulakshmi was said to have executed in favour of Karthikeyan's daughter Sasibanu alias Subadharsini. The Will was executed as regards the properties not covered by the settlement deed that Subbulakshmi had executed in favour of Karthikeyan. (The details of this Will is not known)

(ix) Be that as it may, both Ramamritham and Karthikeyan chose to compromise their dispute. Sasibanu too was impleaded in the appeals as a legatee of Subbu Lakshmi's Will. Accordingly, on 17.09.2002, a compromise decree came to be passed by this Court in A.S. No. 953 of 1997 and A.S. No. 464 of 1998. This compromise decree is available in the records of the present case as Ext.A-2.

(x) Under Ext.A-2, the suit property measuring 14.26 acres was allotted to the share of Ramamirtham. Thereafter, on 17.03.2004 under Ext.A-1, Ramamirtham had sold the suit property to the second plaintiff.

(xi) However, even during the pendency of O.S. No. 55/1986, on 03.01.1996, Karthikeyan had so