JUDGMENT :

This Second Appeal is preferred challenging the Judgment and Decree of the learned III Additional District and Sessions Court, Vridhachalam, Cuddalore District in A.S.No.86 of 2019 dated 05.10.2020 confirming the judgment of the learned I Additional District Munsif Virudhachalam, Cuddalore in O.S.No.394 of 2008 dated 21.02.2018.

2. The Appellants are the Plaintiffs. The Appellants filed a suit for the relief of declaration of their title in the suit properties and for permanent injunction against the respondents, not to disturb their possession and enjoyment. It is seen from the plaint averments that the suit properties were purchased by one Rajambal through two sale deeds dated 19.03.1938 and 27.04.1939. The said Rajambal had a son named Masilamani. Two months subsequent to the marriage with Panchavarnam, Masilamani died. Panchavarnam left her matrimonial home and started living with her brother Veeran. Rajambal adopted her sister's daughter Saradhambal in the presence of public in the village. Rajambal got her married to one Kaliaperumal. The plaintiffs are the sons of Saradhambal. Rajambal, Saradhambal and Kaliaperumal were living as joint family.

3. After the death of Rajambal, the suit properties vested on Saradhambal and she has been in possession and enjoyment of the suit properties. According to the learned counsel for the appellants, the first respondent has no right in the suit properties. However, the first respondent has filed a petition for cancelling the patta that stands in the name of the appellants and the respondents are trying to interfere with the possession and enjoyment of the suit properties. Therefore, the suit in O.S.No.394 of 2008 was filed by the appellants.

4. The first respondent filed a written statement denying the claim of the appellants. It has been stated that in the marriage with Masilamani, there was no child born to Panchavarnam. Therefore, Panchavarnam adopted her sister's daughter Anjalai. Anjalai married Balakrishnan. It is claimed that Rajambal's adoption of Saradhambal and treating Saradhambal as her daughter, is not true. There had never been an adoption taken place as claimed by the appellants. There was no ceremony performed as claimed in the plaint. The claim that Rajambal's properties were inherited by Saradhambal and then by the appellants is not correct. Rajambal was taken care of by Panchavarnam. The suit properties were vested on Panchavarnam. Patta had been granted in the name of Panchavarnam in Patta No.1602. Saradhambal was looking after the lands of Rajambal on the instructions of Rajambal. Except that, she had no connection in the property. Saradhambal, taking advantage of the illiteracy of Panchavarnam, had effected name change in the revenue records.

5. On coming to know about the name change, Panchavarnam gave a representation. On enquiry, patta was granted in the name of Panchavarnam. Thus, the appellants have no claim, title or possession in the suit properties. Panchavarnam also filed an additional written statement claiming that the fourth defendant is not the proper and necessary party to the suit and he is unnecessarily impleaded in the suit. Plaintiffs have also filed the reply statement denying the contentions made in the additional written statement and challenging the will said to have been executed by Panchavarnam in favour of the respondent and also the sale executed by Panchavarnam in favour of Ravichandran on 24.06.2013.

6. On the basis of the above pleadings, the trial Court framed the following issues:

(i) Whether the plaintiff has got valid title and lawful possession to the suit property?

(ii) Whether the Plaintiff is entitled to the relief of declaration and permanent injunction in the suit property?

(iii) Whether the defendant got title and in possession and enjoyment of the suit property?

(iv) Whether the defendant's averment that Saradhambal was not validly adopted by Rajambal is true or not?

(v) To what reliefs the plaintiffs is entitled to?

Add