JUDGMENT

The plaintiff, who was successful in a suit for declaration of her title and for ancillary relief of injunction over the suit property in O.S.No.7 of 2005, having tasted a reversal in fortune in A.S.No.7 of 2008 which was filed by the defendant, is the appellant herein.

2. The case of the plaintiff is:

•

Sy.No:65/8 in Vadanathampatti Village has a total extent of 2.76 acres. In this a block of 2.11 acres in S.No.65/8A1 is described as the suit-property.

•

The plaintiff claims title to 2.11 acres from two different sources.

•

On 20.12.1954, a certain Kovil Pillai, the paternal grandfather of the plaintiff purchased 88 cents under Ext.A.1 = Ext.B.4 sale deed.

•

Kovil Pillai had two children namely Anthony and Savariammal. Earlier on 07.09.1954, Anthony died leaving behind him surviving his wife Pushpam and his daughter, the plaintiff. About 1960, Kovil Pillai died, whereupon the 88 cents that he had purchased under Ext.A.1= B4 devolved on his daughter-in-law Pushpam and grand-daughter Savariammal. Since the mortgage was not redeemed, by efflux of time, the mortgagees became the absolute owners of this block of 1.23 acres.

•

The total extent of 2.11 acres (88 cents + 1.23 acres) was jointly enjoyed by Pushpam, Savariammal. Later in a family partition, the entire property came to be allotted to the share of Anthony's branch since Savariammal was allotted some other property.

•

While Pushpam became entitled to 2.11 acres as stated above, the remaining 65 cents in the said survey field is held by one Elangani and few others and a joint patta under patta No: 2552 was issued to them.

•

While so, on 07.12.2004 vide Ext.A.2 settlement deed Pushpam had settled the suit property in favour of her daughter, the plaintiff herein.

When the plaintiff faced obstruction to her title from the defendants, she laid the suit for declaration of the title etc.

3. Resisting the suit, the defendants have pleaded in the written statement as below:

•

The entire 2.76 acres in Sy.No:65/8 originally belonged to Samuel, the vendor in Ext.A1 = Ext.B4 sale deed. It is true that Kovil Pillai had purchased 88 cents under Ext.A.1 = Ext.B.4.

•

However, contrary to the assertion of the plaintiff, Kovil Pillai had four children and not two. They were: (a) K.S.Anthony alias Periya Anthony (b) Therasammal, (c) Savariammal; and (d) Anthony alias Chinna Anthony. Plaintiff is the daughter of Chinna Anthony.

•

While so, on 21.06.1951, under Ext.B-3, Peria Anthony and his sister Savariammal had obtained an otti of 32 cents from Samuel, but the property was enjoyed only by Periya Anthony. At no point of time Chinna Anthony, the father of the plaintiff ever enjoyed this property.

•

Now, Peria Anthony became the title holder of 2.48 acres in S.No:

S.No.65/8A1, from different sources, and they are as below:

•

Prior to his death on 10.05.1962, Kovil Pillai had orally sold the 88 cents that he had purchased under Ext.A.1 to his son Periya Anthony as the latter took adequate care of his father in his old age.

• 32 cents vide Ext.B.3 otti deed, dated 21.06.1951.

•

This apart, some time in 1960 Periya Anthony had orally purchased another portion measuring 1.28 acres in the same survey field from Karuppasamy, Arumugam, Subbaiah, Oyilan, Soundara Pandiyan.

•

At no point of time Chinna Anthony or his wife Pushpam ever enjoyed any property in the suit survey field and at all times the property was owned and enjoyed only by Periya Anthony. This will also be known from a Power of Attorney document dated 29.07.1967 (marked Ext.B29 before the first appellate court). In this backdrop, Pushpam's name was clandestinely included in the patta during UDR scheme.

• While so on 14.11.1980 under Ext.B.2 sale deed, Periya Anthony had sold the entire 2.48 acres that he had obtained from three different sources as described above to a certain Samuel (not the vendor of Kovil Pillai under Ext.A.1) under whom the defendants claim.

4. The dispute went to trial. During trial, the plaintiff examined herself as P.W.1 and she examined