JUDGMENT

The Second Appeal has been filed by the appellant/defendant, who lost his case before both the Courts below.

2. The respondents herein/plaintiffs, filed the Suit seeking to declare them as owners of the suit 'B' schedule property and consequential relief to remove the fence and roof put up by the defendant in the suit 'B' schedule property and to hand over the possession to the plaintiffs. The suit was decreed in favour of the plaintiffs, against which, the appellant/defendant has filed the Appeal Suit. The judgment and decree of the trial Court was confirmed by the appellate Court. Challenging the same, the present Second Appeal has been filed by the defendant.

3. For the sake of convenience, the parties are referred to as they are arrayed in the original suit.

4. The case of the plaintiff is as under:-

4.1. The suit 'A' schedule property, which is a punja land comprised in Survey No.281/3 ad measuring 68 cents originally belonged to one Bakkiyathammal, who had purchased the same through a registered sale deed dated 14.11.1935.

4.2. The said Bakkiyathammal and her husband passed away leaving behind them two daughters named Govindammal, Alamelu and one son Chandrakasu. Among them, the two daughters are no more. One Amirthavalli, the daughter of Govindammal and her husband Natesan also died. They had no children. The second daughter Alamelu has got a daughter by name Virudhambal. The said Virudhambal was given in marriage to Chandrakasu, the son of Bakkiyathammal. They have a daughter by name Suguna, who is the mother of the plaintiffs

4.3. The parents of Suguna viz., Chandrakasu and Virudhambal had passed away. Prior to her death, the said Virudhambal, daughter of Alamelu and granddaughter of Bakkiyathammal had executed a Will dated 23.6.2009 in favour of her daughter Suguna, After the death of the said Virudhambal on 4.7.2009, Suguna, being the only legal heir, had been in enjoyment of the suit property by acquiring the same.

4.4. The said Suguna, who is the mother of the plaintiffs, out of love and affection, has executed a settlement deed dated 21.12.2011 in favour of the plaintiffs, which was registered in the Sub Registrar Office, Sirkazhi, in Doc.No.4509/2011.

4.5. Whileso, during the month of December 2011, the defendant encroached upon the suit 'A' schedule property by fencing the same and the encroached portion of the property is mentioned as 'B' schedule property.

4.6. The plaintiffs had sent a notice to the defendant on

27.03.2013 seeking to vacate their property and hand over the possession to them. The defendant sent a reply through his counsel on 10.04.2013 claiming that one Amirthavalli and Virudhambal, the grandmother of the plaintiffs, by an unregistered sale deed dated 18.07.1990, had sold the 'B' schedule property to the defendant and refused to vacate the 'B' schedule property.

4.7. The plaintiffs have denied the contention of the defendant with regard to the execution of the said deed and also denied that the defendant was in possession of 'B' schedule property from 1990. Therefore, the suit has been filed in O.S.No.95 of 2013 before the learned District Munsif, Sirkazhi.

5. The crux of the written statement filed by the defendant is as under:-

5.1. The defendant had contended that the suit schedule property belonged to one Govindammal, first daughter of Bakiyathammal and one Amirthavalli is the legal heir of the said Govindammal. The said Amirthavalli and the grandmother of the plaintiffs had executed an unregistered sale deed dated 18.07.1990 in respect of 16 cents in Survey No.281/3B, in favour of the defendant and from 1990, he was in continuous possession.

5.2. The further contention of the defendant is that no Will was executed by Virudhambal in favour of the plaintiffs' mother Suguna and it was a forged one. Thereby, the plaintiffs are not entitled to the suit 'B' schedule property. Hence the present suit is liable to be dismissed with costs.

6. Based on the pleadings, the trial Court framed the following