JUDGMENT :

(Prayer: Second Appeal is filed under Section 100 of C.P.C, to set aside the judgment and decree passed in A.S.No.42 of 2017 on the file of the Subordinate Judge, Madukulathur dated 29.11.2019 confirming the judgment and decree passed in O.S.No.30 of 2010 on the file of the District Munsif Court, Mudukulathur.)

1. The third defendant is the appellant herein.

2. The plaintiff filed O.S.No.30 of 2010 before the District Munsif Court, Mudukulathur for declaration of title and permanent injunction. The suit was decreed by the trial Court. The third defendant filed A.S.No.42 of 2017 before the Sub Court, Mudukulathur. The learned Subordinate Judge has dismissed the first appeal. As against the concurrent finding, the third defendant has filed the above second appeal.

3. The plaintiff had contended that the suit schedule properties were originally owned by one Velammal, wife of Kuppaiandi Velar. Since Velammal and Kuppaiandi Velar did not have any issue, the said Velammal has executed a Will in favour of her brother Vijayan Velar under a registered Will dated 24.09.1968 under Exhibit A1. After death of Velammal, the property devolved upon her brother Vijayan Velar and he was enjoying the same. According to the plaintiff, the second defendant is the son of the said Vijayan Velar. The said Vijayan Velar had executed a registered Will on 06.05.1996. Thereafter, the said Vijayan Velar and the second defendant entered into a family arrangement, in which, the second defendant was allotted 1/4th share on the western portion. In the said family arrangement, the said Vijayan Velar and his daughter were allotted the eastern portion. However, patta continued to be in the name of Vijayan Velar in Patta No.729. On 09.10.1998 under Exhibit A4, the plaintiff purchased the suit schedule property from the said Vijayan Velar and his daughter for valuable consideration. Thereafter, a subdivision was also created in the year 1999 and Patta No.99 was granted. According to the plaintiff, he is the bonafide purchaser for valuable consideration.

4. The plaintiff further contended that the second defendant has executed a sale deed with regard to the suit schedule property on 19.05.2009 under Exhibit A9. The said sale is without any title or right. The plaintiff has acquired title by prescription. Pending suit, defendants 1 and 2 have colluded along with Vijayan Velar and created another sale deed in favour of the third defendant under Exhibit A13 on 19.03.2013. Hence, the plaintiff prayed for declaration of title and permanent injunction.

5. The third defendant filed a written statement contending that there was no such family arrangement, in which the eastern portion was allotted to Vijayan Velar and his daughter. He further contended that the plaintiff is not a bonafide purchaser. The third defendant further contended that the sale deed said to have been executed by Vijayan Velar and his daughter under Exhibit A4 on 09.10.1998 is a forged document and no such document has been executed by the said vendor. He further contended that the third defendant has acquired title by adverse possession and he is a bonafide purchaser for valuable consideration from the original owner of the suit schedule property.

6. The trial Court after considering the oral and documentary evidence on either side arrived at a finding that the contention of the second defendant that the entire extent of 3.75 acres was allotted to the share in the family arrangement is not supported by any oral or documentary evidence. The trial Court also arrived at a finding that the sale deed executed by the second defendant on 19.05.2009 under Exhibit A11 has been executed without any title or any right. The trial Court also arrived at a finding that as per Exhibit A1, Vijayan Velar and his daughters are each entitled to 1/4th share and in total they are entitled to 3/4th share in the suit schedule property. The son of Vijayan Velar namely the second defendant is only entitled to 1/4th share.