JUDGMENT :

The sole defendant in O.S.No.137 of 2007, who had suffered a decree of declaration of title and permanent injunction from disturbing the plaintiff's peaceful possession and enjoyment of the suit property at the hands of the court below has come up with this second appeal.

2. For the sake of convenience the parties in the second appeal will hereinafter be referred to as per their array before the trial court.

3. The plaintiff filed the original suit for a decree of declaration declaring that he is the absolute title holder and possession of the suit property and for permanent injunction restraining the defendant, his men, agents or any one claiming under him from disturbing the plaintiff's peaceful possession and enjoyment of the suit property in any manner. Pending suit, the 1st defendant died and therefore, his legal heirs, the defendants 2 to 8 who were already on record were recognized as legal heirs of the deceased 1st defendant. Thereafter, the 3rd defendant died and therefore, his legal heirs were brought on record and arrayed as defendants 9 to 12.

4. The Suit was filed on the pleadings inter alia that the plaintiff has become the absolute owner of the suit property having purchased it from Irusammal, Purani, Govindammal, Anjalatchi, Subbarayan, Adimoolam, Venkatesan and Kuppammal represented by their power of attorney agent one Adimoolam, who is one among the vendors for a valid consideration through a registered sale deed dated 05.03.2007. Ever since the date of purchase he has been in peaceful possession and enjoyment of the suit property. The suit property, which is a part of a larger extent, was originally belonged to one Mayakrishnan @ Krishnasamy Counder, who had four sons viz., Govindasamy, Parasuraman, Kathavarayan and Ramasamy, the 1st defendant herein. After the death of Mayakrishnan @ Krishnasamy Counder, all his four sons succeeded to the larger extent of property and amicably partitioned the same by four equal shares by metes and bounds and had started enjoying them independently. The suit property was allotted to the share of Govindasamy and after the death of Govindasamy, the plaintiff's vendors viz., the wife and children of Govindasamy succeeded the suit property as legal heirs of Govindasamy. The legal heirs of Govindasamy had executed a Power of Attorney in favour of Adimoolam, son of Govindasamy on 25.02.2004 and the said Adimoolam in turn sold the property in favour of the plaintiff through a registered sale deed dated 05.03.2007. While so, in the 3rd week of June, 2007, the defendant attempted to commit criminal trespass into the plaintiff's property without any right or title over the same. Therefore, the plaintiff had lodged a complaint on 20.06.2007 before Mudaliarpet Police Station. The plaintiff with the help of panchayatars managed to restrict the illegal acts of the defendants. The plaintiff wanted to have a peaceful relationship with the defendants. He had, therefore , approached the revenue authorities for measurement of the land. But, the process of measurement was not concluded because of the untenable claims made by the defendants.

5. The defendants resisted the suit contending that a thatched house with vacant site measuring 2 Ares and 20 Cents situated at Murugapakkam Revenue Village was originally owned by one Mayakrishnan @ Krishnasamy Counder which was the ancestral property of the said Mayakrishnan @ Krishnasamy Counder and his four sons. One of the sons of Mayakrishnan @ Krishnasamy Counder viz., Govindasamy left the suit property and was residing at Subbaia Nagar, Ariyankuppam. Thereafter, Mayakrishnan @ Krishnasamy, the 1st defendant along with his two brothers Parasuraman and Kathavarayan were living in the above said property. Thereafter, brother of the 1st defendant viz., Parasuraman had executed a registered release deed on 28.12.1989 releasing his 1/4th share in favour of the 1st defendant for valid consideration and in the same way, the another brother of the 1st d