Point of Law: When they are not shown to be in any manner perverse, illogical and irrational, resultantly, the substantial questions of law formulated are accordingly answered infavour of the plaintiff and against the defendants.

Judgment :-

(Prayer: Second Appeal has been filed under Section 100 of CPC against the Judgement and Decree in A.S. No.34/1984 on the file of the Subordinate Judge, Tirupattur dated 29.06.2001 in confirming the judgment and decree in O.S.No.199/1977 on the file of the Principal District Munsif, Tirupattur and dated 10.01.1984.)

1. Challenge in this second appeal is made to the Judgement and Decree dated 29.06.2001 passed in A.S. No.34/1984 on the file of the Subordinate Court, Tirupattur, confirming the judgment and decree dated 10.01.1984 passed in O.S.No.199/1977 on the file of the Principal District Munsif Court, Tirupattur.

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

3. The defendants 2 to 4 in O.S.No.199 of 1997 are the appellants in this second appeal.

4. Suit for declaration and permanent injunction.

5. The case of the plaintiff, in brief, is that the plaintiff, the first defendant and one Govindasamy are the sons of the deceased Venkatesa Gounder and they constituted a Hindu Joint family and there was a partition in the year 1964 and in that partition 1.79 acre in Survey No.178/3 and 0.23 1/2 cents in Survey No.88/7 of the suit village were allotted to the share of the plaintiff beside the other properties and subsequent to the same, the plaintiff has been in the possession and enjoyment of the abovesaid allotted properties and as the abovesaid properties had been purchased in the name of the plaintiff's father and mother out of the income derived from the ancestral properties and accordingly the abovesaid properties had been treated as the joint family properties along with the other properties and therefore, been the subject matter of the partition effected in 1964. The plaintiff issued a notice to the first defendant, Venkatesan and Govindasamy on 08.01.1974 and on 15.10.1974 the first defendant, Venkatesa Gounder and Govindasamy sent a reply setting forth that the entire extent in Survey No.178/3 and 88/7 were allotted to the share of the first defendant Tirupatti Gounder. On account of the family disputes regarding the construction of the rice mill by the plaintiff alone, Venkatesa Gounder and Mangai Ammal had created a false settlement deed qua the abovesaid survey numbers in favour of the defendants 2 to 4 and accordingly they had attempted to interfere with the plaintiff's possession and enjoyment of the allotted properties and hence the plaintiff had laid a suit in O.S.No.556/75 against the defendants Venkatesa Gounder, Mangai Ammal and Govindasamy on the file of the District Munsif Court, Tirupattur for declaration and permanent injunction. In that suit, all the defendants engaged a lawyer and filed the written statement. The written statement of the third respondent, i.e. Tirupati Gounder, had been adopted by the other defendants. In the written statement it has been categorically stated that Survey Nos.178/3 and 88/7 have been allotted to the share of the first defendant in the family partition and thereafter Venkatesa Gounder and Mangai Ammal had no right to execute the settlement deed inrespect of the abovesaid survey numbers in favour of the defendants 2 to 4. The plaintiff and the defendants in O.S. No.556/75 had accepted the panchayat decision to allot 1.89 acres in survey No.178/3 to the plaintiff and accordingly the parties had chosen to compromise the abovesaid suit and following the same, both the plaintiff and the first defendant herein had filed the compromise petition praying that the suit may be decreed in terms of the compromise and accordingly an extent of 1.89 acres in survey No.178/3 had been given to the plaintiff and the compromise decree was passed on 10.12.1976. Venkatesa Gounder died on 11.04.1977. The defendants are living as joint family and the compromise effected in O.S. No.556/75 had been signed by the first defendant as the manager of the joint family and therefore, the same is binding on the defendant 2 to 4 and therefore, the