JUDGMENT :

[PRAYER: Second Appeal filed under Section 100 of Code of Civil Procedure, to set aside the judgment and decree dated 25.02.2014 in A.S.No.10 of 2013 on the file of Subordinate Judge at Gingee reversing the judgment and decree dated 26.09.2012 in O.S.No.449 of 1994 on the file of Principal District Munsif Court, Gingee.]

The appellants herein are the legal heirs of deceased Paranthaman and his brother Ranganathan, the plaintiff therein filed a suit in O.S.No.449 of 1994 on the file of District Munsif Court, Gingee against deceased Paranthaman/1st defendant and his wife and daughters/defendants 2 to 6 for the relief of recovery of possession contending that the suit property in Survey No.115/35, a house along with vacant site absolutely belong to him and the same was trespassed by deceased Paranthaman. Hence, the Suit. But, the defendants contended that the suit property, a house along with vacant site belong to 1st defendant absolutely and he has put up a construction and paying house tax from the year of 1979 onwards, thereby denied the plaintiff's claim. During the pendency of the suit proceedings, the 1st defendant/deceased Paranthaman died and his wife and daughters were impleaded as defendants 2 to 6 in the suit.

2. For the sake of convenience, the parties are referred as per the ranking in the suit.

3. The Trial Court framed four issues and on considering the evidence of both sides, the trial court held that the plaintiff is not entitled for the relief of recovery of possession without claiming declaratory relief over the suit property, thereby the suit was dismissed. Aggrieved over that, the plaintiff preferred an appeal in A.S.No.10 of 2013 before the Sub-Court, Gingee, wherein the learned first appellate judge framed separate issues and analysed the evidence and documents and finally held that the suit property belong to the plaintiff and his right was already confirmed in the decree passed in O.S.No.277 of 1981, which was ended in a compromise between himself and his father, thereby, the plaintiff is the absolute owner of the property, but it was forcibly occupied and put up further construction by the deceased Paranthaman. Hence, the plaintiff is entitled for recovery of possession. Accordingly, the appeal was allowed and the suit was dismissed. Challenging the said findings, this Second Appeal has been filed.

4. Heard and considered the rival submissions made by Mr.R.Mubarak Basha, learned counsel for appellants and Mr. V. Raghavachari, learned counsel for respondents and perused the records.

5. Brief facts of the case is as follows :-

The suit property along with other properties originally belong to one Govindaraja Boopathi. The plaintiff and the 1st defendant deceased Paranthaman and one Rajaraman were the three sons of Govindaraja Boopathi. The case of plaintiff is that the suit property was allotted to plaintiff's father share during the partition and thereafter, in the year of 1979, in order to perform marriage to the said Paranthaman, his father Govindaraja Boopathi requires a sum of Rs.10,000/- and he offered to purchase the property on a oral sale. Accordingly, the plaintiff purchased the suit property by paying a sum of Rs.10,000/- towards sale consideration to his father. Considering the relationship, no document was executed and based upon a oral sale, the suit property was handed over to his possession by his father and he conferred title over the suit property as per the oral sale made on 07.10.1979. As a owner, the plaintiff was remained in possession and one Radhakrishnan filed a suit for specific performance in O.S.No. 905 of 1981 against his father and the same was dismissed in the Second Appeal. In that suit, this plaintiff was subsequently impleaded as 2nd defendant on the death of his father. Apart from that, his father acted against him. Hence, the plaintiff filed a suit in O.S.No.277 of 1981 for declaration of title and injunction against his father. In that suit, his father entered into