JUDGMENT :

Prayer: Second Appeal is filed under Section 100 of the Civil Procedure Code, against the judgment and decree, dated 11.10.2000, made in A.S.No. 63 of 1999 passed by the Subordinate Judge at Sivakasi, confirming the judgment and decree, dated 31.03.1999, made in O.S.No.196 of 1995 passed by the District Munsif at Sivakasi.

1. The defendants are the appellants herein.

2. The plaintiffs filed O.S.No.196 of 1995 before the District Munsif Court, Sivakasi for bare injunction restraining the defendants from interfering with the peaceful possession and enjoyment of the suit schedule properties. The trial Court decreed the suit. As against the same, the defendants 2 to 5 filed A.S.No.63 of 1999, before the Sub-Court, Sivakasi. The learned Subordinate Judge concurred with the findings of the trial Court and dismissed the first appeal. As against the said judgment and decree, the present second appeal has been filed by the defendants.

3. The plaintiffs have contended that the suit schedule properties originally belonged to one Subbammal and she had alienated the property in favour of the plaintiff on 06.03.1952 under Exhibit A1. The plaintiffs further contended that they are in possession and enjoyment of the same and a patta has also been granted in their favour under Exhibit A2. The plaintiffs further contended that they are paying kist receipts under Exhibit A3.

4. The defendants filed a written statement contending that the suit schedule properties originally belonged to the defendants' father namely Sriranga Thevar for an extent of 1 acre and 63 cents in Survey No.931/2. According to the defendants, the said property was purchased by Sriranga Thevar under Exhibit B2 on 30.09.1940. The defendants further contended that the plaintiffs' vendor, Subbammal was the concubine of the said Sriranga Thevar and she does not have any right title or possession over the suit schedule properties. The defendants further contended that there was no need and necessity for the said Sriranga Thevar to alienate the properties in favour of Subbammal under Exhibit B1 on 04.03.1950. The defendants further contended that since Subbammal did not derive any title under Exhibit B1, her alienation in favour of the plaintiffs under Exhibit A1 on 06.03.1952 is not legally sustainable. The fact that the plaintiff has not produced the original sale deed standing in the name of the Subbammal will clearly establish that Subbammal did not have any right or title to the suit schedule properties, at the time of her alienation under Exhibit B1, dated 04.03.1950. The defendants further contended that a portion of the suit schedule property was acquired by the Government and the defendants have received the compensation in L.A.O.P. No.79 of 1983 which is marked as Exhibit A4. Hence, the plaintiffs prayed for dismissal of the suit.

5. The trial Court came to a finding that one Sriranga Thevar had purchased an extent of 1.63 acres under Exhibit B2, dated 30.09.1940 from one Karupayee Ammal. Hence, the entire extent is a self acquired property of Sriranga Thevar. The trial Court also arrived at a finding that the said Sriranga Thevar had executed a registered sale deed on 04.03.1950 under Exhibit B1 in favour of one Subbammal for an extent of 1.07 acres. The said Subbammal has executed Exhibit A1 sale deed on 06.03.1952 in favour of the plaintiffs. According to the trial Court, the contention of the defendants that Subbammal did not have any right title or interest over the suit schedule property is not legally sustainable and the same was rejected. The trial Court also found that the plaintiffs have mutated the revenue records in their favour and they are in possession of the suit schedule properties. The trial Court also found that the revenue records produced on the side of the defendants namely Exhibit B4 series and Exhibit B5 does not relate to the suit schedule properties. The trial Court also found that the patta passbook issued in favour of the defendants under