The central legal point established in the judgment is the determination of the nature of the property in question, considering the implications of the Land Ceiling Act and the validity of the family arrangement document.

JUDGMENT

(Prayer: Second Appeal filed under Section 100 of the Code of Civil Procedure against the Judgment and Decree dated 06.02.2007 in A.S.No. 93 of 1998 on the file of the Additional District Judge (Fast Track Court IV), Periyakulam reversing the Judgment and Decree dated 21.07.1998 in O.S.No.86 of 1997 on the file of the District Munsif cum Judicial Magistrate, Bodinayakkanur.)

1. The appellant is the plaintiff in the suit in O.S.No.86 of 1997 on the file of the District Munsif cum Judicial Magistrate, Bodinayakkanur. The respondents are the defendants in the above suit.

2. The suit was filed by the appellant / plaintiff seeking for permanent injunction restraining the respondents / defendants and their men from interfering with his possession and enjoyment of the suit schedule property.

3. The case of the plaintiff is that the suit scheduled property originally belonged to one Vadamalu Servai and his minor sons. Vadamalu Servai on his behalf and on behalf of his sons, sold the property to the plaintiff by virtue of sale deed Ex.A1, dated 17.01.1969. Since the plaintiff was minor at that time, the plaintiff''s grandmother purchased the property as a guardian of the plaintiff. After attaining majority, in the year 1971, the plaintiff took possession of the suit schedule property. Subsequently the plaintiff obtained Patta in his favour and the same was marked as Ex.A2, dated 10.08.1991. The plaintiff has been paying kist regularly. The plaintiff as a owner is in possession and enjoyment of the suit schedule property. The defendants are the brothers of the plaintiff. The defendants have no right or title over the property. The defendants were never in possession and enjoyment of the suit schedule property. The plaintiff and the defendants are living separately. The defendants tried to interfere with the possession and enjoyment of the suit schedule property on 16.01.1994 and the same was prevented. Therefore, the plaintiff filed the suit.

4. The case of the defendants is that as per the partition that took place in the family on 30.12.1979, the suit schedule property is allotted to the third defendant and the same is in separate enjoyment of the third defendant. The plaintiff and the defendants are brothers. Since the father of the plaintiff and the defendants, namely, Arunachalam (late) had many number of lands, in order to get exemption from land ceiling, the suit schedule property was purchased in the name of the plaintiff. Though, the property was purchased in the name of the plaintiff, the same was enjoyed by the family members as a joint family property. Since the plaintiff is the elder member of the family, the documents are available with him. The family arrangement that had taken place on 30.12.1979 was accepted by all the family members. As per the family arrangement, the plaintiff was allotted 2 acres and 8 cents of land in S.No.1708/3. The grandmother of the plaintiff and the defendants passed away after the family arrangement. The plaintiff has filed the suit suppressing all the facts.

5. Before the Trial Court, the plaintiff has examined himself as PW1 and one another as PW2 and marked 45 documents as Exs.A1 to A45 in order to substantiate his case. The defendants examined four witnesses DW1 to DW4 including the third defendant (DW1) and marked 18 documents as Exs.B1 to B18 in order to substantiate their case.

6. After considering the oral and documentary evidence on both sides, the Trial Court came to the conclusion that since the plaintiff was a minor, the suit schedule property was purchased in the year 1969 by the grandmother of the plaintiff as a guardian of the plaintiff and that after attaining majority, the plaintiff took possession of the property and obtained Patta in his name. The Trial Court found that kist was paid by the plaintiff regularly for the suit schedule property and kist receipts were also issued in his name. Therefore, the Trial Court granted Judgment and Decree in favour of the plaintiff.

7. A