JUDGMENT

This second appeal has been filed against the judgment and decree, in A.S.No.13 of 2014 on the file of the Sub Court, Theni, dated 31.03.2015, reversing the judgment and decree in O.S.No.46 of 2012 on the file of the District Munsif Court, Theni, dated 04.12.2013. The appellants herein are the defendants, the respondents herein are the plaintiffs in the original suit.

2.Brief substance of the plaint, in O.S.No.46 of 2012, is as follows: 2.1. The suit properties are the ancestral properties of the first plaintiff. The suit first schedule property belonged to the paternal grand father of the first plaintiff, by name, Veeranan and the said Veeranan had two sons,viz., (i) Periyaveran and (ii) Chinnaveran. After the demise of Veeranan, his sons Periyaveeran and Chinnaveeran divided the property among themselves, by way of an oral partition. Subsequently, Chinnaveeran, released his rights over the first schedule property and handed over the property to Periyaveeran. After the death of plaintiffs' father, the plaintiffs were in enjoyment of the properties. The second schedule property is adjourning the first schedule property.

2.2. The second schedule property belonged to Chinnaveeran. The first plaintiff purchased the second schedule property on 29.11.1974 by way of a registered sale deed. Both the first schedule and the second schedule properties are in the possession of the plaintiff. Two houses therein are having the same EB connection. The first plaintiff executed a settlement deed in favour of his son, the second plaintiff and the second schedule property is in the enjoyment of the second plaintiff. The fifth defendant with the help of the defendants 1 to 4, fabricated a sale deed, dated 20.01.2010. The fifth defendant and the others trespassed into the property and they chased away the plaintiffs. The fifth defendant filed a suit in O.S.No.44 of 2010 against the first plaintiff's wife and her children. Subsequently, the case was dismissed for default. Hence, the suit is filed for permanent injunction.

3. Brief substance of the written statement filed by the first defendant and adopted by the defendants 2 to 4, in O.S.No.46 of 2012, is as follows:-

The original name of Chinnaveran is Veeraiah. The first schedule property is the ancestral property of the grand father of the first defendant. After his death, his sons entered into an oral partition. The first schedule property was allotted to the share of the father of the defendants 1 to 4. There is a lane on the western side of the first schedule property and beyond the lane, the first plaintiff's father was allotted a share and both the brother constructed houses in their respective share of the property. The door number of the first schedule property is 4. The first schedule property never belonged to the father of the plaintiffs or the plaintiffs. The defendants 1 to 4 sold a property adjourning the northern side of the first schedule property to the fifth defendant. The house in the first schedule property was transferred to the name of the fifth defendant and he is in enjoyment of the property. Without a prayer for declaration of title, the suit is not maintainable. There is no objection with regard to the second schedule property.

4. Brief substance of the written statement filed by the fifth defendant, in O.S.No.46 of 2012, is as follows:-

The suit property is the ancestral property of the defendants

1 to 4. After the death of the father of the defendants 1 to 3, their mother Veerammal constructed a house in the first schedule property and she resided there with her children viz., the defendants 1 to 3. The house tax, water tax, EB charges are in the name of Veerammal. It is wrong to state that Chinnaveeran released his right over the first schedule property in favour of the father of the plaintiffs. The fifth defendant purchased the property from defendants 1 to 4. After carrying out the repair works, he got EB connection in his name. The door number of the house in t