JUDGMENT :

N. Sathish Kumar, J.

1. Aggrieved over the judgment of the First Appellate Court, reversing the judgment of the trial Court, dismissing the suit, the present Second Appeal is filed.

2. The parties are referred to as per their rank before the trial Court.

3. The brief fact, leading to file this Second Appeal, reads as follows:-

The first plaintiff and one Pattaye Ammal have purchased the suit property from one Muthuramalinga Thevar on 29.03.1979. Thereafter, in a oral partition between the said Pattaye Ammal and the first plaintiff, the suit property was allotted to the first plaintiff. The first plaintiff has changed the revenue records in her name and she is also running a Rice and Flour Mill in the suit property. Besides, the first plaintiff's ancestors are also in possession of the suit property and perfected the title by adverse possession. It is stated by the first plaintiff that originally, the suit property belonged to one Palaniyappa Thevar and he has executed a settlement deed dated 24.03.1960 in favour of his son, namely, Muthuramalinga Thevar and the said Muthuramalinga Thevar was in enjoyment of the suit property and was running Rice and Flour Mill in the suit property and in the year 1953, after obtaining permission from the authorities, they put up a construction in the suit property. The defendants are stranger to the suit property. The south side of the suit property belonged to Durga. When the first plaintiff was trying to put up a new construction, the defendants have prevented the first plaintiff. Again, the defendants were trying to encroach upon the suit property. In a reply statement, it is stated by the first plaintiff that the vendor has right to sell the property and the first plaintiff and their ancestors are in possession of the property more than the statutory period. The alleged compromise decree entered between the said Muthuramalinga Thevar and the defendants also denied and the patta was also issued in the name of the said Muthuramalinga Thevar. Hence, the suit has been filed for bare injunction.''

4. It is the case of the defendants that the alleged sale in favour of the first plaintiff is denied. It is the contention that the said Muthuramalinga Thevar had no title whatsoever to sell the property. Originally, the suit property belonged to the defendants' ancestors. The said Muthuramalinga Thevar was inducted as tenant. Since one Sivasubramaniya Thevar and Palaniyappa Thevar had put up a construction without permission, a suit has been filed by one Mohideen Ansari in O.S. No. 785 of 1953. The above suit was decreed as per the compromise entered between the parties, wherein the said Muthuramalinga Thevar had agreed to vacate the suit property, within a period' of 12 years and to pay monthly rent of Rs. 7/- and he had also agreed that the value of the superstructure to be paid by the landlord. In the event of failure to pay that amount after 12 years, the said Muthuramalinga Thevar shall continue as tenant in the suit property. Therefore, it is the contention that either on the land or superstructure, the said Muthuramalinga Thevar did not have any title. The first plaintiff has put up a construction only after obtaining interim injunction in the suit. The alleged trespass is also denied. Hence, they prayed for dismissal of the suit.

5. On the basis of above pleadings, the trial Court has framed relevant issues. On the side of the plaintiffs, P.W. 1 and P.W. 2 were examined and Exs. A.1 to A.17 were marked. On the side of the defendants, D.W. 1 was examined and Exs. D.1 to D.4 were marked. The trial Court, after analysing the evidences, has found that the said Muthuramalinga Thevar, vendor of the first plaintiff was only tenant in the suit property, therefore, he had no right whatsoever to execute the sale deed in favour of the first plaintiff. Further, the alleged Will executed by the first plaintiff in favour of the second plaintiff is also not proved in the manner known to law and one of t