J U D G E M E N T

The defendants 2 to 6 in the suit are the appellants. The respondent/plaintiff filed a suit for declaration of title and recovery of possession. The suit was decreed in favour of the respondent/plaintiff. The first appeal filed by the appellants was dismissed by the First Appellate Court by confirming the findings of the Trial Court. Aggrieved by the concurrent findings against them, the appellants have come by way of this second appeal.

2. According to the respondent/plaintiff, the suit property originally belonged to Ganapathy Mudaliar. He died on 16.08.1943 leaving behind his son Viswanatha Mudaliar, his son's widow Annammal and A.K.Balasubramanya Mudaliar son of Visvanatha Mudaliar. The said Annammal wife of Viswanatha Mudaliar died on 16.08.1965 and one Saraswathy Ammal is the daughter of said Viswanatha Mudaliar. After death of Ganapathy Mudaliar and Annammal, A.K.Balasubramanya Mudaliar conveyed his portion in the suit property in favour of Saraswathy Ammal by a registered Sale Deed dated 12.10.1966 (Ex.A5). Thus, Saraswathy Ammal became absolute owner of the entire property.

Subsequently, the said Saraswathi Ammal by Settlement Deed dated 28.10.1988 (Ex.A10) settled 2232 sq.ft., of suit property on southern side in favour of the respondent/plaintiff. The said Saraswathi Ammal executed another Settlement Deed in respect of 1800 sq.ft., of suit property retained by her on the northern portion under another Settlement Deed dated 13.02.1989 (Ex.A11) in favour of the respondent/plaintiff. Thus, respondent/plaintiff claimed title over the suit property. It was also claimed by the respondent that the mother-in-law of deceased 1st defendant and grand mother of 1st appellant/2nd defendant were permitted to reside in the north western corner of the premises settled in favour of appellants (the 1st defendant died pending suit and the appellants 2 to 5 were brought on record as her legal representatives arrayed as defendants 3 to 6). As the appellants herein acted against the interest of the respondent, a notice was issued on 05.05.2009 (Ex.A37) cancelling the licence granted to them to occupy the suit property. As the appellants came up with a reply stating that they had independent title over the suit property, the respondent was constrained to file the suit for declaration of title and recovery of possession.

3. The appellants/defendants filed a written statement claiming suit property was a Natham Poromboke Land, which was originally under occupation of one Uttirammal, who was mother-in-law of deceased 1st defendant and grandmother of the 1st appellant/2nd defendant. After death of Uttirammal, the property was in possession and enjoyment of her son and husband of deceased 1st defendant-Kanniah Naidu. After death of Kanniah Naidu, 1st defendant was in absolute possession and enjoyment of the suit property and she settled the same in favour of the 2nd defendant on 22.03.1990. Thus, the 1st appellant/2nd defendant became absolute owner of the suit property. The appellants also denied the title and possession of the respondent over the suit property. Lateron, the appellants filed additional written statement raising a plea that respondent was not a daughter of Saraswathi Ammal and at no point of time, the said Saraswathi Ammal adopted the respondent as her daughter. It was also claimed by the appellants that the Settlement Deeds executed by Saraswathi Ammal in favour of respondent on the allegation that respondent was daughter of Saraswathi Ammal was not valid and the same should be declared as null and void and not binding on the appellants. It was also claimed by the appellants that respondent was not a daughter of Saraswathi Ammal and therefore, she was not entitled to maintain the present suit. In the additional written statement, the appellants also raised a counter claim seeking declaration that Settlement Deeds executed by Saraswathi Ammal in favour of the respondent/plaintiff dated 28.10.1988 and 13.02.1989