The main legal point established in the judgment is that the respondents' claim of possession and tenancy was contradictory and not supported by evidence, and that the decree obtained by the first respondent was based on fraud.

JUDGMENT

(Prayer: Civil Miscellaneous Second Appeal filed under Order XXI Rule 104 r/w Section 100 of the Code of Civil Procedure against the judgment and decree dated 21.09.2001 in C.M.A. No.6/2001 on the file of the Addl. District Judge, Nagapattinam, confirming the judgment and decree dated 25.4.2000 in E.A. No.1/1998 in E.P. No.75/1997 in O.S. No.309/1994 on the file of the Addl. Sub Court, Nagapattinam.)

1. Assailing the concurrent findings recorded by the courts below in favour of the respondents herein by holding that the claim of the appellants is barred by limitation, the present civil miscellaneous second appeal has been filed by the first appellant.

2. Pending the appeal, which dates two decades back, the first appellant having passed away, appellants 2 to 5, the legal heirs of the deceased first appellant, have been brought on record to defend the appeal. For the sake of convenience, the array of the parties will be referred to as ‘appellants’ and ‘respondents’ in the order, as they are arrayed before this Court in the present appeal.

3. The case of the appellants, in brief, as projected before the courts below is that the petition mentioned properties in issue originally belonged to one Sarathambal, wife of one deceased Somu Pillai. After the death of the said Somu Pillai, the said Sarathambal gave the petition mentioned properties in favour of her sons and daughter born through her husband, viz., Somu Pillai, viz., Ganesan, Ramachandran, Gangadharan, Kannan, Panchanathan and Lalitha Devi under a release deed dated 5.4.1974, before going to live along with one Mariappan. Since the said release, the legal heirs of Somu Pillai, aforesaid, have been in enjoyment of the petition mentioned properties with full right and, thereafter, the said properties were sold to the 1st appellant herein under a sale deed dated 20.04.1992. Since the said sale on 20.4.1992, the 1st appellant is in possession and enjoyment of the suit properties.

4. It is the further case of the appellants that the attempt of the 2nd respondent to forcibly occupy the petition mentioned properties from the appellants having went in vain, cases and counter cases were filed before this court with regard to survey No.346/2 on the question of issuance of patta. Thereafter, the 2nd respondent filed suit in O.S. No.171/1993 along with I.A. No.469/1993 before the Sub Court, Nagapattinam, against the 1st appellant in which the interim application was dismissed and the suit stood transferred to the District Munsif Court, Mannargudi and renumbered as O.S. No.312/1996. Pending the said suit, the 1st appellant filed O.S. No.182/1996 for injunction against the 2nd respondent and as the suit filed by the 2nd respondent was withdrawn for filing a fresh suit, the suit filed by the 1st appellant was left to be dismissed. Once again, the 2nd respondent filed suit in O.S. No.198/1997 before the District Munsif Court, Mannargudi against the 1st appellant.

5. It is the further case of the 1st appellant that the 2nd respondent, in collusion with the 1st respondent to usurp the petition mentioned properties, caused the 1st respondent to file a suit in O.S. No.309/1994 for specific performance and left the suit undefended, leading to the passing of an ex parte decree in favour of the 1st respondent. Thereafter, the 1st respondent, armed with the said decree, which has been obtained by fraud and practice of collusion with the 2nd respondent, filed E.P. No.23/1996 and E.P. No.63/1996, which were not pursued with ending in dismissal. However, thereafter, the 1st respondent filed E.P. No.75/1997 against the 2nd respondent and forcibly took possession of the petition mentioned property from the 1st appellant through court.

6. It is the further case of the 1st appellant that the 1st appellant, since the date of purchase of the petition mentioned property has been in possession and enjoyment of the petition mentioned properties and the collusive act of the 1st respondent in forcefully dispo