JUDGMENT

The present Second Appeal has been filed against the judgment and decree dated 22.10.2018 passed in A.S. No.2 of 2016 on the file of the learned Subordinate Judge, Devakottai confirming the judgment and decree dated 30.06.2015 passed in O.S. No.106 of 2012 before the Principal District Munsif, Karikudi.

2. This Second Appeal has been filed by raising several grounds as well as on various substantial questions of law. As there was no appearance on behalf of the respondents, despite notice having been served on them, this Court proceeded to dispose of the Second Appeal, on hearing the learned counsel for the appellant and on perusing the materials available on record.

3. For the sake of convenience, the parties are referred to as per their array before the trial Court.

4.The case of the plaintiff, as per the averments made in he plaint, in short, reads as follows :

The suit schedule property is the ancestral family property of the plaintiff, inclusive of the sixth defendant, as well as that of the family of fourth defendant. Sixth defendant is the son of the plaintiff.

The suit schedule property has been in possession and enjoyment of the forefathers of the plaintiff and fourth defendant and that of the sixth defendant as well for a long period and therefore they claim right over the suit properties by way of adverse possession also. Their forefathers have been issued with patta which has been marked as Ex.A.1. As there was misunderstanding between the plaintiff and his son fourth defendant, he has been arrayed as fourth defendant in the suit. As the fourth defendant has sold three acres of land, which is portion of the suit schedule property, to one Janaki ammal and therefore under the rule of estoppel he is restrained from giving evidence in this case.

It is the further case of the plaintiff that an extent of 45 acres of properties, including the suit schedule property, belonged to the families of plaintiff and defendants 4 and 6, and as such they have obtained separate pattas. The adangal, which stands in the name of the forefathers of plaintiff has been marked as Ex.A.2 in the case. Defendants 1 to 3, 5 and 7 are Nagarathar of Alagapuri. There was a suit before the District Munsif's Court, Devakottai in O.S.No. 356 of 1986 between the first-defendant and one Tyagarajan Chettiar, who is the father of the 5th defendant herein on the one side and the sixth-defendant on the other, and since the plaintiff has not been in cordial terms with him, the plaintiff was not knowing details about the suit.

It is the further case of the plaintiff that only when he proposed to issue paper publication on 02.03.2012, he came to know about the said case and therefore the present suit is not barred by limitation.

It is the further case of the plaintiff that defendants 1, 2, 3, 5 and 7 in O.S.No.356 of 1986 have wrongly pleaded therein as if the suit property belongs to Ko-Alagapuri Nagarathar and these defendants were representatives of Nagarathar, and patta has been issued in the name of Nagarathar.

It is the further case of the plaintiff that only the forefathers of plaintiff and D4 who obtained property from Sivagangai Zamin, distributed the same to Nagarathar. Even during the settlement period, Nagarathar of Kothaiyur obtained respective pattas and therefore, it cannot be said that the lands belong to Nagarathar Podhu. It is only the plaintiff and 4th defendant who represented the Nagarattar.

It is denied that there is no Kovul land after 30.05.1955 in as much as the forefathers of the plaintiff had written a letter in 1959 to the settlement office to distribute the properties in their name and that of Nagarattar. The copy of that document is marked as Ex.A.4. Koul land alone was in the possession of Nagarattar then it was seperated and allotted in the name of Nagarathar. Therefore there was no land for Nagarathar Podhu.

It is the further case of the plaintiff that in view of the above, in the Revenue Department, the names of the forefathers