JUDGMENT :

Prayer: This Second Appeal is filed under Section 100 of C.P.C. against the Judgment and Decree made in A.S.No.148 of 2006 dated 27.10.2009 on the file of the Principal Subordinate Judge at Vriddhachalam thereby partly allowing the same insofar as the relief for permanent injunction is concerned and dismissed the relief of declaration of title modifying the judgment and decree made in O.S.No.1014 of 1992 dated 07.04.2005 on the file of the Principal District Munsif Court at Vriddhachalam.

This Second Appeal has been filed against the Judgment and Decree made in A.S.No.148 of 2006 dated 27.10.2009 on the file of the Principal Subordinate Judge, Vridhachalam thereby partly allowing the same insofar as the relief of permanent injunction is concerned and dismissed the relief of declaration of title modifying the judgment and decree made in O.S.No.1014 of 1992 dated 07.04.2005 on the file of the Principal District Munsif Court at Vridhachalam.

2. The defendants 1, 3 and 4 in O.S.No.1014 of 1992 on the file of the Principal District Munsif, Vridhachalam is the appellants herein. Before the said Court, the respondent herein filed the above referred suit as against the appellants and one another Valarmathi (Died) seeking the relief of declaration declaring that the plaintiff is the absolute owner of the suit schedule property and for the relief of permanent injunction restraining the defendants/appellants or his agents in interfering with the peaceful possession and enjoyment of the suit schedule property. Alternatively, he prayed for the relief of possession in case of forcible possession and for compensation towards the rent from the date of plaint till the date of delivery of property and for costs. By Judgment and Decree dated 07.04.2005, the learned Principal District Munsif, Vridhachalam had dismissed the suit in its entirety.

3. Aggrieved over the said findings, the plaintiff/respondent preferred an appeal in A.S.No.148 of 2006 on the file of the Principal Subordinate Judge, Vridhachalam. By Judgment and Decree dated 29.10.2009, the learned Principal Subordinate Judge, Vridhachalam had partly allowed the appeal and granted the relief of permanent injunction in favour of the plaintiff. Feeling aggrieved over the Judgment and Decree dated 29.10.2009, the defendants 1, 3 and 4 have preferred this second appeal.

4. For the sake of convenience, hereinafter the parties are called as per the litigation status before the Trial Court.

5. The laconic averments made in the plaint are as follows:

(i) The suit property belongs to plaintiff’s paternal uncle by name Ramanujam. The said Ramanujam enjoyed the suit property by keeping the cattle, manure and haystack. The said Ramanujam married the first defendant and lived together for two years and thereafter the first defendant deserted the said Ramanujam and for the past 20 years she is living with a third party. Thereafter the said Ramanujam was under the care and custody of the plaintiff’s mother Meenakshi Ammal. Out of love and affection, the said Ramanujam executed an unregistered Will dated 01.10.1982 in favour of the plaintiff. Thereafter he died on 07.11.1982 without having issues. At that time, since the plaintiff was minor, the said Ramanujam appointed the plaintiff’s mother as guardian. After attaining majority, the plaintiff is continuously enjoying the suit property. The plaintiff also prescribed the title over the suit property by way of adverse possession and the defendants are construed to be ousted from the suit property. The defendants are estopped from claiming any title, right or interest over the property. Except the plaintiff nobody is having any right in the suit schedule property. The second defendant is not born to the said Ramanujam and she is not a daughter of him. The third and fourth defendants have obtained mortgage in respect of the suit property from the first and second defendants through which they have no right at all and the mortgage is not valid in law.