JUDGMENT

Prayer :- This Second Appeal is filed under Section 100 of Civil Procedure Code against the judgment and decree dated 30.01.2004, in A.S.No.24 of 2002 on the file of the Principal District Court, Dharmapuri District at Krishnagiri reversing the decree and judgment dated 26.03.2002 in O.S.No.218 of 2000 on the file of the District Munsif cum Judicial Magistrate Court, Pochampalli.

This second appeal is directed as against the judgment and decree dated 30.01.2004, in A.S.No.24 of 2002 on the file of the Principal District Court, Dharmapuri District at Krishnagiri reversing the decree and judgment dated 26.03.2002 in O.S.No.218 of 2000 on the file of the District Munsif cum Judicial Magistrate Court, Pochampalli.

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

3. The case of the plaintiffs in brief is as follows :-

3.1 The suit is filed for declaration and injunction. The suit property originally belonged to one, Rama Gounder, in turn he settled the property in favour of his daughter Kaveri Ammal and his son in law Mariappan by the registered settlement deed dated 05.10.1955. They are none other than the plaintiff's father and mother. In fact, the settlement deed was executed by the said Rama Gounder, since the Kaveri Ammal is the only daughter and she only maintained him. After execution of the settlement deed, the wife of the said Rama Gounder also died and the said Rama Gounder lived with the said Kaveri Ammal and Mariappan till his death. In the year 1997, he died and thereafter the 'B' schedule property in the year 1958 was leased out to one, Ramaraj Chettiar by the said Kaveri Ammal and Mariappan. They received rent from the said Ramaraj Chettiar. Thereafter in the year 1999, the defendants 1 to 3 refused to pay rent to the plaintiffs in respect of 'A' schedule property since the property does not belong to the said Kaveri Ammal and Mariappan. As such, the defendants 1 to 3 were called upon to vacate the suit premises and also caused notice to them on 15.03.1995. Therefore, the plaintiffs prayed for possession in respect of 'A' schedule property. In respect of 'B' schedule property, in the year 1999, the fourth defendant was trying to trespass into 'B' schedule property, and thereafter the fourth defendant also tried to sell the 'B' schedule property as if he is the owner of the property in favour of the fifth defendant. As such, again the plaintiff caused legal notice on 15.03.1999 to the fourth defendant. Hence, they filed the suit for possession in respect of 'A' schedule property as against the defendants 1 to 3 and declaration and injunction in respect of suit 'B' schedule property as against the fourth and fifth defendants.

4. Resisting the plaintiffs' case, the fifth defendant filed written statement, which was adopted by the fourth defendant and stated that in respect of 'A' schedule property, it belongs to the fifth defendant and in respect of 'B' schedule property, it belongs to the fifth defendant. He further stated that one, Rama Gounder executed settlement deed in favour of Kaveri Ammal and her husband on 05.10.1955 and the settlement deed is a created one and not valid in the eye of law. In fact, when the said Rama Gounder was very much alive, on 12.11.1987, he executed a Will in favour of his two wives, namely Mangaiammal and Lakshmi Ammal. When he was alive, the said two wifes namely Mangaiammal and Lakshmi Ammal sold out 'B' schedule property in favour of the fourth defendant by the registered sale deed dated 12.10.1990 for the valid sale consideration. In fact, on the date of sale itself, the possession of the property was handed over in favour of the fourth defendant and all the revenue documents were mutated in the name of the fourth defendant. On 16.11.1990, the said property was sub divided by the order passed by the Tahsildar, Krishnagiri and he regularly paid revenue dues in his name in respect of 'B' schedule property. In turn, by the sale de