JUDGMENT :

PRAYER : Second Appeal filed under Section 100 of the Civil Procedure Code to set aside the Judgment and Decree dated 21.09.2016 made in A.S.No.103 of 2013 on the file of the I Additional Subordinate Judge at Nagercoil, confirming the judgment and decree dated 03.09.2013 made in O.S.No.821 of 2009 on the file of the Principal District Munsif, Nagercoil and allow this second appeal.

This Second Appeal has been filed challenging the concurrent findings of the Courts below. The parties are described as per the litigative status in the suit. The plaintiff in the suit is the appellant herein. The suit in O.S.No.821 of 2009 was filed on the file of the Principal District Munsif Court, Nagercoil, against the respondent/defendant seeking for the relief of declaration of title, recovery of possession, future mesne profits and for permanent injunction. The suit schedule property is the house site having an extent of 2.333 cents out of 7 cents in S.No.1639, Iravipudur Village, Agastheeswaram Taluk, Kanyakumari District.

2. The case of the plaintiff as seen from the plaint are as follows:

(a) He is an adopted son of Kamalachi;

(b) According to the plaintiff, the suit schedule property originally belonged to one Subramania Nadar and he had sold the said property in favour of Kamalachi under sale deed dated 11.11.1982 (Ex.B1);

(c) Kamalachi executed a registered settlement deed dated 11.11.1982 (Ex.A1) in favour of the plaintiff, who is her adopted son retaining her enjoyment of the suit schedule property till her lifetime;

(d) According to the plaintiff, the suit schedule property was purchased by Kamalachi under the sale deed dated 11.11.1982 (Ex.B1) only out of his own income in the name of Kamalachi out of his natural love and affection towards her. Thereafter, the plaintiff claims that he has got the suit schedule property by virtue of settlement deed dated 11.11.1982 (Ex.A1) executed on the very same date by Kamalachi;

(e) The plaintiff claims that in the suit schedule property, a house bearing Door No.6/95 was constructed and Kamalachi, her husband, Paul Nadar and their youngest daughter, the defendant herein and the plaintiff as adopted son were residing;

(f) Kamalachi, died on 04.04.1992. According to the plaintiff, he permitted the defendant and her father to reside in the suit schedule property, though the settlement deed dated 11.11.1982 (Ex.A1) was given effect to and acted upon, pursuant to the death of Kamalachi as early as on 04.04.1992; and

(g) According to the plaintiff, Paul Nadar died on 20.10.2009 and thereafter, the plaintiff requested the defendant to vacate and hand over possession of the suit schedule property to him and the same was refused. Only under such circumstances, the suit in O.S.No.821 of 2009 came to be filed.

3. However, as seen from the written statement filed by the defendant in the suit, her defence is as follows:

(a) She has denied the title of the plaintiff over the suit schedule property based on the settlement deed dated 11.11.1982 (Ex.A1) allegedly executed by Kamalachi in favour of the plaintiff;

(b) According to the defendant, Kamalachi purchased the suit schedule property on 11.11.1982 (Ex.B1) and she had put up a small house after her purchase and she was residing with her family eversince the purchase;

(c) According to the defendant, Kamalachi allowed her husband and the defendant to live with her;

(d) The plaintiff was never an adopted son of Kamalachi as pleaded in the plaint;

(e) During 2007, the house in the suit property fell down due to heavy rain. The defendant had put up foundation for a new house and due to paucity of funds, further construction was not carried out; and

(f) The settlement deed dated 11.11.1982 (Ex.A1) alleged to have executed by Kamalachi in favour of the plaintiff has been obtained by fraud and therefore, the said document cannot be relied upon by the plaintiff to prove his title over the suit schedule property.

4. The trial Court based on the pleadings of both the partie