JUDGMENT :

T. Ravindran, J.

1. The second appeal Nos. 85 & 86 of 2009 are directed against the common judgment and decree passed in A.S. Nos. 98 of 2006 & 34 of 2006 on the file of the Subordinate Court, Chidambaram, reversing the Judgment and Decree dated 20.10.2005 passed in O.S. Nos. 69 of 2002 & 581 of 2000 on the file of the District Munsif Court, Kattumannarkovil.

2. Second appeal No. 85 of 2009 has been admitted on the following substantial questions of law:

"1. Whether the lower appellate Court's judgment is not vitiated as one based on no evidence and for presuming title of respondents 1 & 2 to the suit property in the absence of any legally acceptable documentary evidence and merely based on the plea of oral purchase contrary to the provision of the Transfer of Property Act?

2. Is not the judgment of the lower appellate Court vitiated for perverse appreciation of the evidence?

3. Is not the suit of the respondents 1 & 2 liable to be dismissed as bad for non joinder of necessary and proper parties?

4. Whether the judgment and decree of the lower appellate Court are not liable to be set aside for its finding that the respondents 1 and 2 had perfected title by adverse possession in the absence of proper pleadings as required by law and evidence there for?

5. Is not the judgment of the lower appellant Court incorrect and contrary to law is so far it upheld the challenge of respondents 1 and 2 who are strangers and third parties even through the co-sharers likely to be affected had not challenged the sale deed executed by 3rd respondent alone?"

3. Second appeal No. 86 of 2009 has been admitted on the following substantial questions of law:

"1. Whether the lower appellate Court is right in presuming title in the respondents 1 and 2 to reverse the decree of the trial Court?

2. Is not the judgment of the lower appellate Court vitiated for perverse appreciation of the evidence and application of incorrect legal positions?"

4. O.S. No. 69 of 2002 has been laid by the respondents 1 & 2 against the appellant and the third respondent in S.A. No. 85 of 2009 for the relief of declaration and permanent injunction.

5. O.S. No. 581 of 2000 has been laid by the appellant against the respondents in S.A. No. 86 of 2009 for the relief of permanent injunction.

6. Considering the scope of the issues involved between the parties as regards the subject matter lying in a narrow compass, it is unnecessary to dwell into the facts of the case in detail.

7. Suffice to state that the respondents 1 & 2 in the second appeals claim title to the suit property on two grounds. It is not in dispute that the suit property originally belonged to the deceased Pethusamy Naidu. It is also not in dispute that Vaithilinga Naidu, the father of the respondent Sambandam, is the brother of the deceased Pethusamy Naidu. It is also not in dispute that Pethusamy Naidu and his wife the deceased Adilakshmi Ammal had died intestate and they have no issues. It is thus noted that Vaithilinga Naidu, the brother of Pethusamy Naidu, is the second class heir of the deceased Pethusamy Naidu, the original owner of the suit property. Thus, according to the respondent Sambandam he being the son of Vaithilinga Naidu, is entitled to succeeded to the suit property. That the respondent Sambandam is the son of Vaithilinga Naidu is not in dispute.

8. The respondents 1 & 2 claim title to the suit property firstly on the footing that their predecessor in interest viz., one Muthupathar purchased the suit property for a sum of Rs. 2,000/- from Pethusamy Naidu. On the pleas put forth by the respondents, it is evident that the abovesaid sale put forth by them is only an oral sale and no sale deed had been executed by Pethusamy Naidu in favour of Muthupathar. As rightly concluded by the Courts below, no explanation has been offered by the respondents as to why Muthupather had not endeavoured to obtain a regular sale deed from Pethusamy Naidu qua the suit property, which, according to them, had been sold to Mut