The main legal point established is that the validity of property transactions, such as settlement deeds, should be determined based on the evidence presented, and claims to property must be supported by legal documentation and proof.

JUDGMENT

(Prayer: This Second Appeal is filed under Section 100 of Civil Procedure Code, against the Judgment and Decree in A.S.No. 47 of 2006 on the file of Additional Sub-Court, Tiruvanamalai and dated 09.01.2007 in confirming the Judgment and Decree in O.S.No. 13 of 1998 on the file of the District Munsif Court, Chengam and dated 07.10.2005.)

1. The plaintiff in O.S.No. 13 of 1998 on the file of the Additional District Munsif Court at Chengam is the appellant herein.

2. The said suit had been filed by the plaintiff Krishnan against his two elder brothers Thanjiyappan and Narayanan, seeking declaration of his undivided 1/3rd share in the first item of suit property and for consequential permanent injunction against the second defendant, and for partition and separate possession of ½ share in the second item of the suit property.

3. The first item of suit property punja lands in S.No. 66/6 in Melpallipatt Village, Chengam in Tiruvanamalai District. The second item of suit property is house in Door No.15, Vaniyamkulam Street, Uthukottai, Tiruvanamalai District.

4. The Additional District Munsif, Chengam, had dismissed the suit.

5. Thereafter, the appellant herein had filed A.S.No. 47 of 2006 and also I.A.No. 185 of 2006 to receive additional documents before the Additional Sub Court at Tiruannamalai. By Judgment dated 09.01.2007, though I.A.No. 185 of 2006 was ordered, it was held that the additional documents would not advance the cause of the appellant. A.S.No. 47 of 2006 was dismissed. This has necessitated the plaintiff to file the present Second Appeal.

6. The second appeal had not been admitted. However, a perusal of the notes paper reveal that a learned Single Judge had dismissed the second appeal against the first respondent, Thanjiyappan, who was the first defendant in the suit on 05.07.2021.

7. The suit in O.S.No. 13 of 1998 had been filed by the appellant herein seeking a declaration of his undivided 1/3rd share in the first item of the suit property and for partition and separate possession of ½ share in the second item of suit property. The plaintiff claimed that the suit properties originally belonged to Venkatachala Naicker, who had executed a settlement deed with respect to 4 acres and 4 Wells in favour of his two daughters Nagarathinammal and Kuppammal. The plaintiff and the two defendants are the sons of Kuppammal. It was also claimed that Venkatachala Naicker also sold a portion of the lands and out of the sale proceeds purchased the first item of the suit property in the name of his wife Kamalammal. Kamalammal had executed a settlement deed with respect to 2.10 acres with ½ share in the Well in favour of her minor grandsons, the 1st and 2nd defendants and Ambikapathy, her grandson through another daughter Nagarathinammal. The first and second defendants were given the western extent of 1.05 acres. This settlement deed dated 24.02.1954 was also registered.

8. Claiming that the first item of suit property was an ancestral property and that Kamalammal had no right or title to execute the settlement deeds, the suit had been filed seeking a declaration of 1/3rd share in the first item of suit property. With respect to the second item of suit property, the plaintiff claimed that it was in Government Poromboke land and his father Munisamy had occupied it and on 10.06.1988 a panchayat was convened and the plaintiff and the second defendant were each allotted ½ share in the said property. Therefore, the suit was also filed for partition and separate possession of the said ½ share in the second item of suit property.

9. The second defendant had filed a written statement disputing the contentions of the plaintiff. He stated that the settlement deed executed by Kamalammal on 24.02.1954 was a valid settlement deed settling her self acquired properties. It was stated that she had purchased the properties out of her own available funds and had every right to settle the said properties. It was also specifically stated that on the da