JUDGMENT :

This second appeal has been filed to set aside Judgment and Decree dated 12.03.2020 made in A.S.No.13 of 2016 on the file of Sub Court, Paramakudi confirming the Judgment and Decree dated 19.03.2014 made in O.S.No.124 of 2012 on the file of District Munsif Court, Paramakudi.

2. The appellants/plaintiffs had instituted a suit in O.S.No.124 of 2012 on the file of the District Munsif Court, Paramakudi to declare the suit property is belonged to the plaintiffs and consequently declaring the sale deed dated 31.07.2006 executed by the first defendant in favour of the second defendant is null and void and to grant permanent injunction against the defendants restraining them from interfering possession and enjoyment of the plaintiffs in the suit property.

3. It is the case of the appellants/plaintiffs that the suit property was originally belonged to plaintiffs' father namely T.P.Muthu enjoying it as his ancestral properties and he died on 14.08.1996. After the demise of the plaintiffs' father, the plaintiffs are enjoying the property jointly. The suit property comes under the survey No.269-3 for an extent of 0.48.5 acres which comprised in patta No.614. Now the plaintiffs are having possession and enjoyment over the suit property. In the said circumstances, the first defendant alleged to have executed inam settlement deed to his son namely Karthickraja on 31.07.2006 regarding the suit property. The first defendant's father name is Mangaikarasu, but, fraudulently the first defendant had stated as Muthu @ Mangaikarasu in the deed. The plaintiffs had paid property tax till 2012 in the name of plaintiffs' father and the plaintiffs' sisters are married and living separately and they are not necessary parties in the suit. The defendants have no right over the suit property. Hence, the plaintiffs filed the present suit.

4. The respondents/defendants filed written statement denying the claim of the plaintiffs and stating that the suit property originally belonged to one Muthu and his brother Shanmugam. The said Muthu had mortgaged the suit property in favour of Raman on 17.06.1951. The said Muthu and his brother Shanmugam redeemed the said mortgage and sold the suit property to the first defendant's father namely Mangaikarasu on 11.06.1955 itself. The plaintiffs, who are the legal heirs of the said Muthu, have no right over the suit property after the sale. The suit is bad for non jointer of necessary parties because the sisters of the plaintiffs are not added as a party in the suit proceedings. The defendants father died 30 years back and his mother also died 5 years back. Hence, the first defendant is enjoying the suit property. At the time when the plaintiffs' father was alive, he had only minor son, namely Sithiravelu as his legal heir. The plaintiffs were not even born at the time of execution of the sale deed by his father in favour of the defendants. The first defendant's father also mortgaged the property to one Gopal Chettiyar on 10.01.1961 and the same was redeemed by the first defendant. Therefore, before birth of plaintiffs itself, their father had executed a sale deed in favour of the first defendant's father. Hence, the plaintiffs have no right at all over the suit property. The first defendant's father also known as Muthu @ Mangaikarasu. Therefore, it is stated in the sale deed as Muthu @ Mangaikarasu. Due to the error occurred and wrong patta issued in favour of the plaintiffs, they are claiming right over the suit properties who have no right at all. Hence, they prayed for dismissal of the suit.

5. Before the Trial Court, on the side of the plaintiffs, PW.1 was examined and Ex.A1 to Ex.A5 were marked. On behalf of the defendants, DW1 to DW3 were examined and Ex.B1 to Ex.B9 were marked. On the basis of the rival pleadings on either side, the trial Court has framed the necessary issues and after evaluating both the oral and documentary evidence, had dismissed the suit.

6. Aggrieved by the Judgment and decree rendered by t