The validity of documents such as Partition Deeds, Wills, and Sale Deeds must be proved in the manner known to law, and the absence of mention of the suit property in relevant documents affects the claimant's right to the property.

JUDGMENT

(Prayer: Second Appeal is filed under Section 100 of C.P.C against the judgment and decree dated 29.10.2018 made in A.S.No.44 of 2017 on the file of Sub Court, Kangeyam and confirming decree and judgment dated 01.04.2016 in O.S.No.175 of 2012 on the file of the District Munsif, Kangeyam.)

1. The un-successful plaintiff before the Courts below has filed the above second appeal, which has been admitted by this Court on 07.02.2020 on the following substantial questions of law:

a) Whether the Courts below are right in dismissing the suit for declaration and permanent injunction against the respondents / defendants in spite of the fact that appellant / plaintiff has proved her case by letting oral and documentary evidence?

b) Whether the Courts below are right in disbelieving sale deed dated 20.01.2012(A) and appellant being the bona fide purchaser?

2. In order to answer the above substantial questions of law, it is necessary to allude to the facts of the case and by doing so, the parties are referred to in the same litigative status as before the trial Court.

3. The plaintiff had filed a suit O.S.No.175 of 2012 for declaration and permanent injunction in respect of the property described herein below:

4. The case of the plaintiff is that the suit property and other properties belonged to one Muthusamy Gounder. Muthusamy Gounder had a son Ponnambalam, whose children were Duraisamy, Ramasamy and Muthusamy(father of the 4th defendant and husband of the plaintiff's vendor). It is the case of the plaintiff that under a registered Partition Deed dated 01.04.1950, Ponnambalam and his sons had partitioned the joint family properties. The properties in Pachapalayam village in survey field No.482A and other survey fields were allotted to the share of Muthusamy. The suit property is in possession of the said Muthusamy. It is the contention of the plaintiff that in Survey Field No.485, there are two tiled houses and in Survey Field No.488, there is a house and vacant site. The said Muthusamy had sold the property comprised in S.No.554 to one Duraisamy. Thereafter, he had bequeathed all properties including the suit property in favour of his wife, Kannammal under a registered Will dated 03.01.2000. Muthusamy and Kannammal had three children, Asokan, the 4th defendant, Raja Paneerselvam and Navarathinam, the only daughter. After the death of Muthusamy, the fourth defendant had filed a suit O.S.No.170 of 2000 on the file of the Sub Court, Dharapuram. This suit was compromised and the suit property was allotted to the share of Kannammal. Thereafter, under a registered sale deed dated 20.01.2012, Kannammal sold the suit property to the plaintiff. Pending the suit, the fourth defendant had got himself impleaded by orders of Court in I.A.No.1015 of 2012. The plaintiff would contend that since there was an attempt on the part of the defendants to evict the plaintiff and as she and her predecessor-in-title have been enjoying the properties for several years and have perfected title to it, she had come forward to institute the above suit for the reliefs stated therein.

5. The defendants 1 to 3, who were the Government Officials, had filed a written statement inter-alia contending that the suit property was a Natham waste land and therefore, the title vested only with the Government and not on any other person. The suit property could not be bequeathed by Muthusamy, since he had no title to the same and consequently, the plaintiff's vendor also could not claim any right in the property. The plea of adverse possession would not be maintainable against the Government. The defendants 1 to 3 therefore sought for dismissal of the suit.

6. The fourth defendant had filed a written statement, in which, he would contend that the suit property was not allotted to Muthusamy under the Partition Deed dated 01.04.1950 and the Will was also denied. Further, even assuming that the Will is a valid one, any right that flowed under the Will to the said Kannammal h