JUDGMENT :

(Prayer: The Second Appeal filed under Section 100 of the Civil Procedure Code against the judgment and decree dated 19.02.2018 passed in A.S.No.46 of 2017 on the file of the Principal District Judge, Krishnagiri, partly allowing the judgment and decree dated 05.04.2017 passed in O.S.No.195 of 2014 on the file of the Subordinate Judge, Uthangarai.)

1. This Second Appeal has been filed against the judgment and decree dated 19.02.2018 passed in A.S.No.46 of 2017 on the file of the Principal District Judge, Krishnagiri, partly allowing the judgment and decree dated 05.04.2017 passed in O.S.No.195 of 2014 on the file of the Subordinate Judge, Uthangarai.

2. The 1st defendant in a suit for declaration and permanent injunction is the appellant herein, aggrieved by the reversal findings rendered by the First Appellate Court.

3. The parties are described as per their litigating status before the Trial Court.

4. The plaintiff's case is that the suit schedule property is a self acquired property, in his possession and enjoyment. The said property consists of two items comprised in S.No.638. The 1st item of the property originally belonged to the 1st defendant, being his ancestral property, which was inherited by the plaintiff. So far as the 2nd item of the suit property is concerned, it belonged to 3rd defendant's mother Jadachiyammal, who sold it to the 4th defendant, from whom, the plaintiff purchased the said two items of the suit property in and by a Sale Deed dated 26.05.2010. The plaintiff has mutated revenue records in his favour and while he was in peaceful possession and enjoyment, the defendants tried to interfere with his possession by attempting trespass. The plaintiff has therefore filed the suit for declaration.

5. The 1st defendant filed a written statement stating that though the 1st item of the suit property belonged to the 1st defendant, the 2nd item of the suit property did not belong to the 3rd defendant. The Gift Deed was denied by the 1st defendant, on the ground that the settlor was not the mother of the 3rd defendant and further, she was also not entitled to item 2 of the suit property. According to the 1st defendant, the Settlement Deed was created only to grab the property of the 1st defendant and the entire lands in S.No.638 measuring 2.80 acres was purchased by the paternal grandfather of the 1st defendant on 20.07.1957 and the 1st defendant became entitled to half share at birth and after the demise of his father, the 1st defendant's share increased to 2/3rd. The 1st defendant therefore questioned that the plaintiff's entitlement as not being valid. The 1st defendant, in order to meet the marriage expenses of the 3rd defendant, had spent a sum of Rs.6,00,000/- and in order to celebrate the marriage, he was forced to avail loan and in order to settle the same, the item 1 of the suit property alone was sold to the 4th defendant.

6. The 3rd defendant filed a written statement, which was adopted by the 2nd defendant. According to these defendants, the plaintiff was not in possession and enjoyment of the suit property. The 1st item of the property, being ancestral property, the 1st and 3rd defendants were also entitled to a share in the property and therefore, the sale executed by the 1st defendant, without the consent of the 3rd defendant would not bind the 3rd defendant. According to the 3rd defendant, the Gift Deed in her favour, by her mother Jadachiammal was true and the sale in favour of the 4th defendant was for consideration and also valid.

7. The Trial Court dismissed the suit, as against which, the plaintiff preferred a First Appeal in A.S.No.46 of 2017. The First Appellate Court partly reversed the judgment and decree of the Trial Court, holding that the defendants were entitled to 93 cents in the 1st item of the suit property and 1 acre in the 2nd item of the suit property and therefore, the plaintiff's entitlement in respect of 1.93 acres was held to be valid. The First Appellate Court also found