J U D G M E N T

This second appeal is filed against the judgment and decree dated 23.09.2011 made in A.S.No.42 of 2010 on the file of Principal Sub Court, Tindivanam, confirming the judgment and decree dated 07.04.2010, made in O.S.No.433 of 2007 on the file of the Additional District Munisif Court, Tindivanam.

2. Notice of motion was ordered on 12.03.2012. The unsuccessful plaintiff is the appellant herein. The suit is filed for declaration of tile and for permanent injunction against the defendants 1 to

3.

3. The plaint proceeds on the basis that:

3(i) the suit property more fully described hereunder originally belonged to one Natrajan S/o. Munusami. He for himself and as the guardian of his minor brothers Raman and Velayutham sold the same to Kuppusami S/o, Munusami Kounder, the brother of the plaintiff under the registered sale deed dated 09.06.1970 for Rs.600/- and delivered possession of the same. Kuppusami and his brothers Ramakrishnan, the plaintiff and Thiruvenkatam were in possession and enjoyment of the suit property and other properties as members of joint family.

3(ii) Kuppusami and his brothers including the plaintiff orally divided their properties in or about 1970. An extent of Ac.0.07 cents on the western side of the suit property was allotted to the share of plaintiff. He is in exclusive possession and enjoyment of the same. The remaining extent in the suit property, namely, old S.No.41/4 eastern, Ac.0.22 1/8 was allotted to the share of Kuppusami and Thiruvenkatam. They were in possession and enjoyment of the same ever since then.

3(iii) Kuppusami and Thiruvenkatam gifter old S.No.41/4 Ac.0.22 1/8 to the plaintiff under the registered Gift deed dated 02.09.1970 and delivered possession of the same. The gift deed dated 02.09.1970 was duly executed, validly attested and registered. The plaintiff accepted the settlement deed and is in possession of the property. Kuppusami and Thiruvenkatam confirmed and acknowledged the plaintiff's title to western Ac.0.07 in S.No.41/4 allotted to the share of with the plaintiff. The plaintiff has been exclusive possession and enjoyment of entire suit property, ever since then. Thus, the plaintiff has absolute title to the suit property, old S.No.41/4 Ac.0.22 1/8.

3(iv) The suit property has been renumbered as S.No.187/4 He.0.13.5 in resurvey. The Tasildhar, Tindivanam transferred patta in respect of the suit property to the plaintiff in the proceedings in RTR.620/2004-05 dated 03.11.2004. The Revenue authorities granted patta in respect of suit property in favour of plaintiff jointly with others. It was comprised in old Patta No.125. It is now in new Patta No.120. The plaintiff has paid kist to old Patta No.125 as well as New No.120. Thus, the plaintiff and his predecessors in title have been in open, continuous and uninterrupted possession of the suit property in assertion of absolute title to the suit property, to the knowledge of the defendants for more than the statutory period and thereby prescribed title by adverse possession also.

4. The written statement filed by the defendants inter-alia contended that the brother of the defendants 1 and 2 is not karta of the family, during the right time of the sale and the sale effected on behalf of the minor by the elder brother is void in nature and does not confer any title and also raised the plea of adverse possession is not substantiated.

5. The trial Court has formulated an issue whether Ex.A1/Sale deed dated 09.06.1970, executed by the elder brother of the defendants 1 and 2 is valid and binding upon the defendant.

6. The learned counsel for the appellant would contend that the brother of the plaintiff had purchased the property from the brother of the defendant as a karta of the family and in such capacity, he was in joint possession of the property and evidencing joint possession, has filed Ex.A3 to Ex.A15. However, since the defendants have mortgaged these properties under Ex.A6 on 15.10.2016, he has filed the suit. The defendant