The central legal point established in the judgment is that possession follows title, and the requirement of proving a Will in accordance with the law under the Indian Evidence Act, 1872.

JUDGMENT

(Prayer: The Second Appeal filed under Section 100 of CPC, against the judgment and decree made in A.S.No.120 of 1999 dated 19.11.1999 on the file of the Additional Sub Court, Nagapattinam confirming the judgment and decree made in O.S.No.271 of 1995 dated 30.06.1998 on the file of the District Munsif Court, Nannilam.)

1. The plaintiff in O.S.No.271 of 1995 on the file of the District Munsif Court, Nannilam is the appellant herein. The suit in O.S.No.271 of 1995 had been filed seeking permanent injunction restraining the defendants therein from interfering with the peaceful possession of the plaintiff with respect to the suit schedule property and also restraining them from interfering with the plaintiff's right to put up construction in the said property and also for costs.

2. The said suit, was dismissed by judgment dated 30.06.1998. The plaintiff then filed A.S.No.120 of 1999 before the Sub Court at Nagapattinam. The said appeal suit was also dismissed on 19.11.1999. The plaintiff then filed the present Second Appeal.

3. The present Second Appeal had been admitted on the following substantial question of law:

"i).In view of the finding that the plaintiff is in possession and enjoyment of the eastern 2-1/4 cents in the suit property whether the Courts below erred in dismissing the suit in its entirety?"

O.S.No.271 of 1995 (District Munsif Court, Nannilam):-

4. The plaintiff claimed that the suit property consisted of vacant land of 2 and 1/2 cents in Arulmozhithevan Village, Nannilam in S.No.85/3B. It had been stated that the suit property originally belonged to Vaithialinga Vanniyar. The plaintiff claimed that she had purchased the property from the son of Vaithialinga Vanniyar by name Ramu Vanniyar by sale deed dated 27.04.1992. The 1st defendant had no right, title or interest over the suit property. The 1st defendant had actually tried to purchase the property from the aforesaid Ramu Vanniyar, but could not do so. It was stated that when the plaintiff attempted to put up construction on 14.09.1995, the 1st defendant had protested and had raised objections. It was under those circumstances that the suit was filed for permanent injunction seeking protection of possession.

5. A written statement had been filed by the defendants also affirming the fact that the property originally belongs to Vaithialinga Vaniyar. They further stated that Vaithialinga Vaniyar had two sons and one daughter. One of the sons was the vendor of the plaintiff. The 1st defendant was the son-inlaw of Vaithialinga Vanniyar. It was claimed that the vendor Ramu Vanniyar was never in possession of the property. The defendants are residing in the house to the West of the property. They have been in possession for more than 50 years. It was also stated that Vaithialinga Vanniyar executed a Will in the year 1963. The house where the defendants resided was bequeathed to his daughter Bhagiyam. There was a fence demarcating the house and vacant space bequeathed to Bhagiyam and the suit property. It was stated that the property of the vendor of the plaintiff was much smaller and therefore, it was claimed that the plaintiff was not in lawful possession of the entire property. It was therefore stated that the suit should be dismissed.

6. On the basis of the pleading, the learned Trial Judge had framed the following issues:-

“i).Whether the plaintiff had right over the suit schedule property and was in possession of the suit schedule property?

ii).Whether the suit schedule property had been properly described?

iii).Whether the cause of action as stated in the plaint is true?

iv).Whether the plaintiff is entitled to the relief of permanent injunction? v).To what reliefs are the plaintiff entitled to?”

7. During the course of trial, the husband of the plaintiff, was examined as PW-1. The plaintiff marked Exs.A1 to A10. Ex.A1 was the sale deed dated 27.04.1992. The other documents related to purchase of materials for putting up construction and letter