JUDGMENT :

Prayer : This Second Appeal is filed under Section 100 of Civil Procedure Code against the judgment and decree dated 31.07.1997 made in A.S.No.188 of 1990 on the file of the Subordinate Court, Ariyalur, reversing the judgment and decree dated 24.07.1990 made in O.S.No.138 of 1984 on the file of the District Munsif Court, Jayakondan.

This second appeal is directed as against the judgment and decree dated dated 31.07.1997 made in A.S.No.188 of 1990 on the file of the Subordinate Court, Ariyalur, reversing the judgment and decree dated 24.07.1990 made in O.S.No.138 of 1984 on the file of the District Munsif Court, Jayakondan.

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

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

3.1. The suit is filed for declaration and injunction. The plaintiff and the second defendant are the sons of one Virudhachala Padayachi. When the plaintiff was minor, his father died and as such the third defendant, who is the mother of the plaintiff was managed and looked after the property belonged to their father. On 14.09.1980, the plaintiff married one Valarmathi. In fact, there was an oral family arrangement between the plaintiff and the second defendant and the property ad measuring 1.33 cents was allotted in favour of the second defendant. The land ad measuring 0.34 cents was allotted to the third defendant viz., his mother and father. The another property ad measuring 1.16 cents was allotted in favour of the plaintiff and his mother was appointed as guardian. The patta was also issued in patta No.887. The house in which the plaintiff is residing was also allotted to him instead of, the property ad measuring 0.34 cents which was allotted in favour of his parents will go to the second defendant.

3.2. After his marriage, there was misunderstanding between the plaintiff and the defendants 2 & 3. In fact, the oral family arrangement was known to common people. Thereafter, the second defendant sold out his share of 1.33 cents and 0.34 cents, in favour of one Panneer selvam and Subramaniam and also the first item of the suit property executed in favour of the first defendant by forgery. The first item of the suit property never belonged to the second and third defendants as such they had no title over the suit property to sell the same to the first defendant. The property is in possession and enjoyment of the plaintiff for the past 15 years and he also prescribed title by way of adverse possession in respect of the first item of the suit property. Therefore, the plaintiff caused notice to the defendants on 22.05.1984 and on receipt of the same, the first and second defendants issued reply notice dated 27.05.1984 with false and frivolous avernments. Hence the suit.

4. Resisting the same, the first defendant filed written statement stating that the suit property was not belonged to Virudhachala Padayachi and also denied all the avernments as false and frivolous. Nothing was mentioned in the pre-suit notice and something added in the plaint, which was not stated in the notice. The plaintiff and the defendants 2 & 3 sold out the land ad measuring 1.33 cents and also 0.34 cents in favour of Panneerselvam and Subramaniam by the sale deed dated 27.05.1967 for the valid sale consideration of Rs.4,000/-. Therefore, the suit property was not allotted from their joint family arrangement. The second and third defendants sold out the property comprised in Survey No.265/12 ad measuring 0.77-1/3 cents out of 1.16 acres in favour of the first defendant for valid sale consideration of Rs.9,000/- by registered sale deed dated 17.05.1984. Thereafter, the first defendant was put in possession and enjoyment of the same.

4.1. In fact, the suit property was already mortgaged in favour of one Rajendiran and Murugaiyan and after entire payment, the property was handed over to the first defendant. Further he stated that after settling the entire amount to the said Rajendiran