The maintainability of a suit seeking to declare a relinquishment deed as null and void depends on the establishment of title and possession, irrespective of challenges to the plaintiff's standing.

JUDGMENT :

K.GOVINDARAJAN THILAKAVADI, J.

This Second Appeal is preferred as against decree and judgment dated 06.09.2021 passed in A.S. No.21 of 2018, on the file of the Sub Court, Tiruvallur, confirming the Judgment and decree dated 14.06.2018 passed in O.S. No.47 of 2010, on the file of the District Munsif-cum-Judicial Magistrate Court, Uthukottai.

2. For the sake of convenience, the parties are referred to as per their ranking in the trial court.

3. The appellants are the defendants 1, 3 to 6 in the above suit. The 1^st respondent as plaintiff filed the above suit for the relief to declare the relinquishment deed dated 30.03.2010 executed by the defendants 2 to 6 in favour of the 1^st defendant as null and void and for permanent injunction restraining the 1^st defendant from interfering with the plaintiff's peaceful possession and enjoyment of the suit property and also for permanent injunction restraining the 1^st defendant from alienating or encumbering the suit property. According to the plaintiff, the suit property is the ancestral property of plaintiff's father Elumalai, who had three daughters, namely, the plaintiff, Shanthi and Sangothi. After the demise of Elumalai, the plaintiff and her sisters were in continuous possession of the suit property. The plaintiff is residing in the suit property by constructing a house. On15.09.2009, the plaintiff's sister Shanthi and Sangothi executed a registered relinquishment deed, by giving their 2/3^rd share to the plaintiff. Thus, the plaintiff has become the absolute owner of the suit property. While so, the defendants being adjacent owners are claiming right over the suit property, which is vexatious. The 1^st defendant, in order to defraud the plaintiff, had obtained a relinquishment deed on 30.03.2010 from his mother, sister and brothers in respect of the suit property. The said deed is not valid and not binding on the plaintiff. The 1^st defendant is attempting to alienate the suit property to third party to create encumbrance. Hence the suit.

4. On the other hand, the defendants would contend that, the suit property originally belonged to one Vellaiammal @ Chellammal and the defendants' grandmother Manickammal purchased the same from her on 17.12.1941. The said Manickammal and her husband died leaving behind their only son Panchalai, father of the defendants. After the demise of Manickammal and her husband, the defendants' father Panchalai was in possession and enjoyment of the suit property and he died on 28.01.2005, leaving behind the defendants as his legal heirs. The defendants became the absolute owners of the suit property. Thereafter, the defendants 2 to 6 have executed a relinquishment deed on 30.03.2010 in favour of the 1^st defendant. Thus, the 1^st defendant is the absolute owner of the suit property. The plaintiff's father Elumalai Reddy, is the brother of Manickammal. The said Manickammal gave permission to him to reside in the suit property and after her demise, the defendants' father also granted him permission to reside in the suit property. At the time of UDR, patta was transferred in the name of the plaintiff's father Elumalai. After the demise of their father, the defendants came into the possession of the suit property. The plaintiff is not in possession of the suit property. Hence, prayed for dismissal of the suit.

5.The trial court, upon considering the materials on record, decreed the suit in favour of the plaintiff, against which, the defendants preferred the appeal suit in A.S. No.21/2018. The first appellate court dismissed the appeal suit. Aggrieved by this, the present Second Appeal is pr