JUDGMENT :

(Prayer: Second Appeal filed under Section 100 of CPC, 1908 against the decree and judgment dated 14.09.2007 passed in A.S. No.83 of 2005, on the file of the Sub Court, Kallakuruchi, partly reversing decree and judgment dated 20.01.2005 passed in O.S. No.75 of 1999, on the file of the I Additional District Munsif, Kallakuruchi.)

1. The unsuccessful plaintiff before both the courts below has filed the present second appeal. During the pendency of this appeal, the appellant died. Therefore, his legal heirs were impleaded as appellants 2 to 8.

2. For the sake of convenience, the parties are referred to as per their ranking in the trial court and in appropriate places, their ranking in the present appeal would also be indicated.

3. The case of the plaintiff is that the suit properties were his ancestral properties and patta Ex.A1 was also issued in favour of his father late Irusappa Udayar in respect of the suit properties and other properties. The plaintiff, being the legal heir of late Irusappa Udayar, took possession of the properties. According to him, the first defendant, with an illegal intention of destroying the ridge between the properties of the plaintiff and the defendants, is attempting to interfere with the plaintiff's possession over the suit properties and hence the suit for declaration of plaintiff's title to the suit properties and for a consequential relief of permanent injunction restraining the defendants, their men and agents from interfering with his (plaintiff's) peaceful possession and enjoyment of the suit properties.

4. The suit was resisted by the defendants on the ground that the plaintiff is entitled to only 2/3 share in the suit properties. Their further contention is that the suit properties originally belonged to three brothers, namely, Ramasamy Udayar, Irusappa Udayar and Ponnusamy Udayar, each entitled to 1/3 share in the suit properties as well as other properties and that since Ponnusamy Udayar was declared insolvent, his share was purchased by the plaintiff. Thus, the plaintiff is entitled to have 2/3 share in the suit survey number. According to the defendants, after the death of Ramasamy Udayar, his wife Panjali Ammal executed a registered Will dated 19.08.1986 in the name of her grand sons, namely, Rajamanickam and Oomadurai, born to her son Thangavelu, who in turn executed a sale deed dated 13.08.1998 (Ex.B2) in favour of the second defendant in respect of their share in survey Numbers 119/1, 119/4, 119/7 to 119/13. It is also their case that Thangavelu and his sons executed a sale deed in respect of 0.05 cents in the suit property in favour of the second defendant and thus the plaintiff is entitled to only 0.10 cents in the suit property.

5. On the basis of the above pleadings, the trial court framed necessary issues and after full contest, dismissed the suit filed by the plaintiff on the following grounds.

1. The plaintiff does not have any right to the entire extent of 0.15 cents in the suit properties.

2. The plaintiff, even without any pleadings in the plaint, has stated in the proof affidavit that there was an oral partition between Ramasamy Udayar, Irusappa Udayar and Ponnusamy Udayar even during the year 1969 and in the said partition the entire extent in suit survey number was allotted to the share of the plaintiff's father.

3. The plaintiff has not proved the alleged oral partition between the three brothers.

4. It was also admitted by the plaintiff that patta Ex.A1 stood in the name of plaintiff's father as he was the eldest brother in the family.

5. Ex.A1 to Ex.A13, which are the revenue records, shall not declare the title of the plaintiff to the entire extent of 0.15 cents in suit survey number and the father of the plaintiff was entitled to only 0.07 cents (0.05 + 0.02 cents). Since there is no clear boundary description in respect of the plaintiff's property, the plaintiff cannot be granted a declaration and permanent injunction as prayed for by him.

6. Aggrieved over the sa