JUDGMENT :

V. BHAVANI SUBBAROYAN, J.

1. The concurrent Judgments and decrees passed in O.S. No. 159 of 2009 by the Additional District Munsif Court, Srivilliputhur and in A.S. No. 63 of 2016, on the file of the Principal Subordinate Court, Srivilliputhur, are being challenged in the present Second Appeal.

2. The respondent/plaintiff has instituted a suit in O.S. No. 159 of 2009 on the file of the trial Court for the relief of declaration and recovery of possession, wherein, the present appellant has been shown as defendant.

3. The case of the plaintiff is that on 11.09.1981, one Mariappan's wife, Muthammal has purchased the suit property and on their own income, they constructed a house in the year 2005. At that time, they constructed two houses viz. one on the lower side and another on the upper side. On 20.07.2006, Mariappan sold the lower side house to one Subban's son Raman and the said Mariappan and Muthamal were in possession and enjoyment of the upper side house. The said Mariappan died on 16.02.2007 and Muthammal died on 01.09.2006 and the said Mariappan and Muthammal had no issues. Karuppiah was the brother of the said Muthammal. The said Karuppaih's son was the plaintiff's husband Ravi. The said Muthammal has no other legal heir than the plaintiff's husband. The said Ramar, who purchased the property in the year 2006, sold the property on 19.11.2008 in favour of the plaintiff. When the plaintiff wished to purchase the lower side house, the defendant also requested the said Ramar to sell the property in favour of him, but the plaintiff purchased the lower side of the house for a higher price and executed a sale deed. Hence, the defendant got enmity with the plaintiff and her husband. The house which is situated on the upper side was in a possession of the plaintiff's husband and he executed a sale deed in favour of the plaintiff. Hence, the plaintiff was in possession and enjoyment of the lower side of the house also and the defendant has no right over the suit property. When the defendant disturbed the peaceful possession and enjoyment of the plaintiff, she gave a complaint before the police station and the police have deposed that they have to approach the competent civil Court. Hence, the plaintiff originally filed a suit for permanent injunction and later on, an amendment petition was filed seeking the relief of declaration and recovery of possession stating that the defendant on 19.04.2012 encroached upon the property and evicted the plaintiff.

4. The defendant had filed a written statement denying all the averments made in the plaint and submitted that the plaintiff's father Karuppiah was not the brother of Muthammal and admitted that the said Mariappan and Muthammal had no issues and they were in possession and enjoyment of the suit property. After the death of Mariappan, one Muniammal, who was the daughter of Mariappan's sister's daughter, was taking care of Muthammal and the said Muthammal, wife of Mariappan, had executed a Will on 08.08.2008 in favour of Muniammal. The said Muthammal died on 01.09.2008 and as per the Will, the said Muniammal was in possession and enjoyment of the suit property. He denied the statement made in the plaint that the Karuppiah's son Ravi was in possession and enjoyment of the suit property. Mariappan's own sister was also another Muthammal and suppressing the fact, the plaintiff has filed the suit. As per the Will, the said Muniammal was in possession and enjoyment of the suit property and she sold the property in favour of the defendant on 18.12.2008 and he was in possession and enjoyment of the suit property. On 19.04.2012, the defendant has encroached upon the suit property was denied and the claim for recovery of possession has been barred by limitation and prayed for dismissal of the suit.

5. Before the trial Court, on the side of the plaintiff, PW-1 and PW-2 were examined and Exs.A1 to A18 were marked. On the side of the defendant, DW-1 to DW-4 were examined and Exs.B.1 to B.6 we