JUDGMENT

The defendants 1, 3 and 7 are the appellants herein.

2.The plaintiffs filed O.S.No.371 of 1985 before the District Munsif Court, Tenkasi for declaration of title over the first schedule property and for a declaration that the defendants are not entitled to execute a decree in O.S.No.88 of 1975 on the file of the District Munsif Court, Tenkasi. The plaintiffs further prayed for declaration of title over item Nos.2 to 5 of the suit schedule properties and for recovery of possession from the defendants. The trial Court decreed the suit with regard to item Nos.1 and 5 as prayed for. As against the disallowed portion of the decree, the plaintiffs filed A.S.No.23 of 1992 before the Subordinate Court, Tenkasi. As against the decree over item No.1, the first defendant filed a cross appeal. The First Appellate Court confirmed the decree with regard to the second and fourth items of the suit schedule properties, in which, no decree was granted by the trial Court. However, with regard to the third item, the First Appellate Court reversed the judgment and decree of the trial Court and granted a decree in favour of the plaintiffs. As far as the cross appeal filed by the first defendant for item No.1 is concerned, the same was dismissed by the First Appellate Court. To summarise, the decree granted by the trial Court in favour of the plaintiffs for first item was confirmed by the First Appellate Court and dismissal of the suit by the trial Court for item nos. 2 and 4 were also confirmed by the First Appellate Court. The First Appellate Court reversed the dismissal of the suit with regard to the third item and granted a decree in favour of the plaintiffs. The decree granted by the trial Court for the fifth item is concerned, since there was no appeal by the concerned defendant namely the third defendant, the said decree of the trial Court has become final. As against the said judgment and decree of the First Appellate Court, the present second appeal has been filed by the defendants 1, 3 and 7. The seventh defendant is none other than one of the legal heirs of the second defendant.

3.The plaintiffs have contended that the suit schedule properties consisting of five items and other properties originally belonged to one Gomathinayagam Pillai. The said Gomathinayagam Pillai had executed a registered settlement deed on 12.10.1941 under Exhibit A1. Under the said settlement deed, all the suit items are mentioned as first schedule. As per recital in the first schedule, the said Gomathinayagam Pillai has granted life interest in favour of his mother Thangammal and after her life time, the second life interest is created in favour of his wife Arunachalathammal and thereafter, the said property would devolve upon the legal heirs of the Gomathinayagam Pillai and Arunachalathammal.

4.According to the plaintiffs, only after the death of the second life estate holder namely Arunachalathammal, his daughter Chellammal would be entitled to have any right, title or possession over the suit schedule property. During the life time of Arunachalathammal, (who is the wife of Gomathinayagam Pillai), Chellammal does not have any right or title to deal with the suit schedule property. However, the said Chellammal had proceeded to execute a mortgage deed in favour of the first defendant under Exhibit A2 on 23.07.1971 for the first item of the suit schedule property. The said Chellammal has also executed a sale deed for the second item of the suit schedule property in favour of the first defendant on 23.07.1971 under Exhibit A3. Chellammal has also proceeded to execute a sale deed in favour of the second defendant for item Nos.3 and 4 under Exhibit A4 dated 11.11.1970. Chellammal has also sold the fifth item of the suit schedule property in favour of the third defendant under Exhibit A5 on 03.01.1979. The plaintiffs are the children of the said Chellammal.

5.Admittedly, the said Chellammal had died in the year 1980 and only in the year 1985, Arunachalathammal, n