JUDGEMENT :

The plaintiffs in the suit for declaration and injunction are the appellants before this Court challenging the judgment and decree in A.S.No.19 of 2006 on the file of the Principal Subordinate Court, Villupuram reversing the judgment and decree of the Principal District Munsif, Ulundurpet in O.S.No.292 of 2003.

2. The facts in brief necessary for disposing of the above Second Appeal are as follows and for the ease of understanding, parties are being referred to in the same litigative status as before the Trail Court.

3. Plaintiffs' Case:

3.1. It is the case of the plaintiffs that the suit properties belonged to one Muthu, who is the husband of the first plaintiff and father of the second plaintiff. The said Muthu had executed a registered Settlement Deed dated 26.04.1994 settling the property on the second plaintiff who was a minor. The mother accepted the settlement on his behalf and since then they have been in possession and enjoyment of the properties. It is their case that in the month of May 1994, the first plaintiff had dug a well in the suit 5th item of property and installed an oil engine for irrigating their lands. Since the first plaintiff was employed at Bombay and the plaintiffs were residing at Bombay she had entrusted the management to her brother Kaliyan.

3.2. For over 19 years the plaintiffs have been in uninterrupted possession and enjoyment of the property. All of a sudden the defendants who had no right, title or interest to the same, have been causing obstructions in the peaceful enjoyment of the property. On 24.09.2003, they forcefully entered into the suit property, taking advantage of the absence of the plaintiffs from the suit village. The plaintiffs also came to learn that false documents were created for the suit properties. Therefore, the plaintiffs have come forward with the above suit claiming the following reliefs:

4. Written Statement of the First Defendant:

4.1. The first defendant had filed a written statement inter alia contending that the suit properties are not the self acquired properties of Muthu but are properties which had been purchased from the ancestral nucleus and the joint contributions of not only Muthu but also the first and second defendants who are Muthu's brothers.

4.2. The first defendant would further contend that their father Arasan had two wives and through the first wife, he had a son Ayyakannu and through the second wife, he had three sons namely Muthu and defendants 1 and 2. The first defendant would contend that Muthu, the first plaintiff, the first defendant and his wife were working with the Indian Railways and eking out their livelihood at Mumbai. He would further contend that both families were living together as a joint family there and the second defendant was living in the suit village and taking care of the agricultural lands. He had been sending the agricultural income to the said Muthu. Likewise the first defendant and his wife were also contributing their salary to him. Out of this income, the suit properties were purchased in the name of the said Muthu since he was the eldest member of the family.

4.3. Meanwhile, in the year 1994 misunderstanding cropped up in their family resulting in their partitioning the properties. It appears that Muthu, taking advantage of the properties being in his name, settled the same on his minor son at the instigation of his wife, the first plaintiff under a Settlement Deed dated 26.04.1994. This fact was accepted by the said Muthu, who thereafter cancelled the settlement deed under the Cancellation Deed dated 20.05.1994. Following the same, on 23.05.1994 the said Muthu, his father Arasan and defendants 1 and 2 had partitioned the properties by metes and bounds. On 27.04.2001 Exchange Deeds were entered into one between the first and second defendants and the other between the Muthu and the second defendant. Thereafter, the first defendant and his son had sold a portion of the property of the suit property to the minor. Defe