The captioned regular first appeal is filed by the

defendant questioning the judgment and decree dated

21.10.2005 passed by the learned Civil Judge(Sr.Dn.) at

Maddur in O.S.No.469/2000 declaring that the suit schedule

properties are the joint family ancestral properties and

consequently mandatory injunction is granted restraining the

present appellant-defendant from alienating or disposing of

the suit schedule properties or any portion thereof.

2.

For the sake of convenience, the parties are

referred to as per their rank before the trial Court.

3.

The facts leading to the case are as under:

(a)The plaintiffs are brothers of appellant-defendant

herein. The plaintiffs specifically contended that suit schedule

3

properties are the joint family ancestral properties. It is their

specific case that their father along with his brothers namely

M.Muniswamy and M. Abraham effected partition in the family

under

registered

partition

deed

dated

26.5.1960

and

accordingly, suit schedule properties fell to the share of

plaintiffs and defendant9s father i.e. Marimuttu. The grievance

of the plaintiffs is that their father Marimuttu was not the

absolute owner and that the defendant and their father

Marimuttu have created a false and fabricated document. The

alienation made by their father Matimuttu in favour of

defendant under registered sale deed dated 27.1.1984 is not

binding on their legitimate share and the said transaction is

made behind the back of the plaintiffs. There was no

partition in the family of the plaintiffs and therefore, the

plaintiffs contended that their father had no authority to deal

with the suit schedule properties. Therefore, the plaintiffs filed

a suit seeking the relief of declaration that suit schedule

properties are the joint family ancestral properties.

4

(b)On receipt of summons, the defendant tendered

appearance and contested the proceedings. The defendant

stoutly denied the entire averments made in the plaint. The

defendant specifically pleaded that the sale deed executed by

her father Marimuttu in favour of defendant is well within the

knowledge of the plaintiffs. Plaintiff No.2 infact has given

consent for effecting mutation thereby transferring the name

of defendant in respect of suit schedule item No.1 property

bearing Survey No.63/A. The defendant also set up a Will by

specifically contending that her father had bequeathed the suit

schedule properties in her favour as well as plaintiffs and

therefore, claimed absolute title over the suit schedule

property covered under the Will.

(c)The Trial Court based on the pleadings framed the

following issues:

"1.Whether the plaintiff proves that suit schedule

properties are joint family properties themselves and

defendants?

5

2. Whether plaintiff proves that in a partition held on

26.05.1960 suit schedule properties have been fallen

to the share of their father?

3. Whether defendant proves suit schedule property

are self acquired property of their father?

4. Whether defendant proves that father executed a

will in her favour and same is beyond legal suspicious

circumstances in respect of suit properties?

5. Whether defendant prove that suit is barred by

limitation?

6. Whether defendant prove that she has perceptual

her title by way of adverse possession?

7. Whether defendant proves that some properties

are self-acquired properties and some properties

obtained under will?

8. Whether plaintiff is entitled for mandatory

injuction as prayed?

9. Whether plaintiff is entitled for relief sought for?

10. What order or decree?"

(d)The plaintiffs in support of their contention examined

plaintiff No.2 as P.W.1 and examined two independent

witnesses and relied on documentary evidence vide Exs.P1 to

20. The defendant examined herself as D.W.1 and examined

6

two independent witnesses as D.Ws.2 and 3 and let in oral

evidence by producing Exs.D1 to 46.

(f)The Trial Court having examined the evidence on

record answered issue Nos.1 and 2 in the affirma