Claims of property ownership must be substantiated with credible evidence, as allegations of trust do not override the Benami Transactions Act without proof of fraud.

JUDGMENT :

K.Murali Shankar, J.

The Second Appeal is directed against the judgment and decree passed in A.S.No.28 of 2017, dated 24.01.2018, on the file of the Additional Subordinate Court, Dindigul confirming the judgment and decree made in O.S.No.28 of 2011, dated 21.02.2017, on the file of the Additional District Munsif Court, Dindigul.

2. The appellants as plaintiffs have filed a suit to declare that “A” and “B” suit schedule properties belonged to the second plaintiff and for permanent injunction restraining the respondents/defendants from interfering with the second plaintiff's possession and enjoyment of the suit properties.

3. For the sake of convenience and brevity, the parties will hereinafter be referred as per their status/ranking in their original suit.

4. It is not in dispute that the first plaintiff is the mother of the second plaintiff, that the first plaintiff and her husband – Thangadurai had five children namely Vijayakandeepan – husband of the first defendant, Dharmaraj - 2^nd plaintiff, Dhanabalan, Rajendran and Pushpa Gandhi and that the said Thangadurai had died in the year 1968.

5. The case of the plaintiffs is that the husband of the first plaintiff – Thangadurai started jaggery business and after his demise, his son Vijayakandeepan had continued the said business, that the second plaintiff due to their poverty discontinued his studies and worked in Thirupathy Venkatachalapathy Lorry office, that subsequently the said Vijayakandeepan was declared as insolvent, that the second plaintiff had then started jaggery business in 1972 and in that business, Vijayakandeepan worked as helper, that all the brothers remained as joint family till 2002, that the second plaintiff with his income has purchased “A” schedule properties, vide four sale deeds dated 02.05.1985, 03.09.1985 and 12.04.1991 in the name of his mother – first plaintiff for the benefit of himself and his brother Vijayakandeepan, that subsequently he purchased “B” schedule properties on 10.09.1985 in the name of the first defendant – wife of the said Vijayakandeepan for the benefit of the second plaintiff and the said Vijayakandeepan, that there arose disputes between the second plaintiff and his brother Vijayakandeepan in 2012 and both of them started living separately with their families, that they have entered into a family arrangement wherein the second plaintiff had agreed to pay Rs.25,00,000/- to the said Vijayakandeepan and the second plaintiff had to take both A and B schedule properties and believing the words of his mother – first plaintiff and his brother Vijayakandeepan, he has been doing agricultural operations in the said lands till filing of the suit, that the first plaintiff having affection with Vijayakandeepan, was residing with him and was retaining the original documents with regard to “A” and “B” schedule properties, that the first plaintiff had cataract surgery on 01.02.2006 and at that time, Vijayakandeepan had misrepresented the first plaintiff as if he is purchasing the properties in the name of the first plaintiff, got the signatures in some documents and created the settlement deeds, that the said Vijayakandeepan along with his wife and fifth defendant and by impleading the first plaintiff as one of the plaintiffs, had filed a suit in