JUDGMENT :

The appeal is directed against the Judgment and Decree passed in A.S.No.34 of 2014, by the learned Principal Subordinate Court, Srivilliputhur, confirming the Judgment and Decree in O.S.No.185 of 2010, passed by the learned Additional District Munsif Court, Srivilliputhur.

2. For the sake of convenience, the parties are referred to herein, as per their own ranking, as before the Trial Court.

3. The case of the plaintiff, as per the averments made in the plaint, in short, is as follows :

Originally the suit property belongs to the father of the defendants namely, Srinivasa Iyyangar and he intended to sell the suit property to the plaintiff's father namely, Muthaiah Thevar, for which, a sale agreement, dated 09.08.1979 was executed, wherein, sale consideration was fixed at Rs.21,480/- (Rupees Twenty One Thousand Four Hundred and Eighty only and paid a sum of Rs.15,000/- (Rupees Fifteen Thousand only) as advance and balance of Rs.8,480/- (Rupees Eight Thousand Four Hundred and Eighty only) have to be paid to the Srinivasa Iyyangar and six months time was fixed for executing the sale deed and the possession of the suit property was handed over to the plaintiff's father. Since then, the plaintiff's father was in possession and enjoyment of the same without any hindrance and the plaintiff was ready to pay the balance amount and get the sale deed, but the defendant's father Srinivasa Iyyangar did not come to Registration Office and execute the sale deed in his father's name and his father was in possession and enjoyment of the suit property till his life time.

4. It is further submitted that during the life time of his father, the defendants' father and the defendants did not take any steps to cancel the sale agreement and for recovery the possession of the suit property. After the demise of Muthaiah Thevar, on 20.06.1999, the plaintiff and his sisters were orally partitioned the suit property and other properties and enjoying the same. Further, in the month of April 2010, the defendants tried to trespass into the property of the plaintiff with the help of henchmen and hence, the plaintiff has filed a suit for permanent injunction.

5. Resisting the claim made by the plaintiff, the fifth defendant had filed a written statement along with counter claim for recovery of possession, which was adopted by the 7th respondent. The defendants 1 and 7 have entered into a registered partition deed on 29.01.1987. As per the said partition deed, 'C' schedule property was allotted to the fifth defendant and out of 49 cents, half share of the same i.e. 24 1/2 cents in survey No.1474 and out of 1 acre 30 cents half share of the same, i.e., 65 cents in Survey No.1475 were allotted to him. Rest of the property was allotted to the seventh defendant and they are in possession and enjoyment of the same. Defendants father Srinivasa Iyyangar died on 05.11.2003 and mother Renganayaki Ammal died on 12.06.2009. Since father and mother were alive, they did not mutate the revenue records. The properties stands in the name of their father, till date. The plaintiff's father was working as a Labourer in the defendants' land and the defendants' father used to send the plaintiff's father for making payment of kist for their lands and other works and accordingly, he used to pay them but the plaintiff's father has not hand over the said kist receipts with an intention to cheat the defendants. The defendants further had tested the plaintiff's father.

6. Further, the plaintiff threatened the defendants to sell the property and from January 2009 onwards, the plaintiff encroached upon the property and did not give the possession to these defendants. The plaintiff is very well aware of the fact that the suit property does not belong to him, but he has filed a suit for permanent injunction and failed to claim any relief regarding declaration. This would show that all the claim made by the plaintiff are false and further the alleged sale agreement is a forged document and