JUDGMENT

The plaintiffs are the appellants in this second appeal.

2. The plaintiffs filed a suit stating that they were the owners of the suit property by virtue of a registered sale deed dated 02.01.1980 and they were in possession and enjoyment of the same and the revenue records also stood in their names.

3. The further case of the plaintiffs is that the 1st plaintiff had a second marriage with the 1st defendant and the 2nd defendant was born out of the said relationship. It is stated that the 1st defendant started giving trouble to the plaintiff's family and was forcing them to part with money. Thereafter, in order to resolve the dispute, a panchayat was convened on 03.02.1992 and the 1st defendant was advised to rejoin the 1st plaintiff. However, the 1st defendant did not obey the panchayathars and asked for a divorce from the 1st plaintiff. It was accepted by the

1st plaintiff and the marriage was dissolved as per their custom.

4. It is further stated that in the year 2000, the 1st defendant started demanding share in the property belonging to the plaintiffs. Therefore, one more panchayat was convened on 18.04.2000 and it was decided in the panchayat that the plaintiffs will execute a family arrangement deed in favour of the 1st defendant. This arrangement did not go through and once again in the year 2003, there was demand for property and once again panchayat was convened and it was suggested that a settlement deed will be executed with regard to the suit property.

5. The grievance of the plaintiffs is that the 1st defendant along with her relatives and her supporters attempted to forcibly tress pass into the suit property and a suit came to be filed by the plaintiffs in O.S.No.116 of 2004 seeking for the relief of permanent injunction and this suit was pending before the Ist Additional District Munsif Court, Salem. An Interim Application was filed in this suit and the 1st defendant filed a counter in the said Interim Application. It was mentioned in the counter affidavit that a sale deed has been executed on 03.05.2000 in favour of the 2nd defendant. According to the plaintiffs, they came to know about the sale deed only at that point of time. The plaintiffs have alleged that the sale deed was obtained by fraud and undue influence and it was not even supported by any consideration. It is further alleged that the interim injunction order in the earlier suit was vacated and taking advantage of the same, the 1st defendant with the help of her supporters forcibly entered the property and had cut and removed the trees. Left with no other option, the suit came to be filed for setting aside the sale deed dated 03.05.2000, for delivery of possession and for the relief of permanent injunction.

6. The defendants filed a written statement and took a very specific stand that the 1st plaintiff did not care to maintain the 1st defendant and the minor daughter. Hence, a request was made to the 1st plaintiff to at least sell the property in favour of the defendants and accordingly, a sum of Rs.48,000/- was received by the 1st plaintiff and a sale deed came to be executed in the name of the 2nd defendant on 03.05.2000. The defendants further stated that the plaintiffs are well aware of the property sold in favour of the 1st defendant and the same being in the possession and enjoyment of the defendants. Therefore, the defendants took a clear stand that there are absolutely no merits in the suit filed by the plaintiffs. 7. The Trial Court on appreciation of the oral and documentary evidence and after considering the facts and circumstances of the case, decreed the suit through judgment and decree dated 26.08.2009. The defendants aggrieved by the same, filed an appeal before the Principal Sub-Court, Salem in A.S.No.141 of 2010. The Appellate Court on re-appreciation of the oral and documentary evidence and on assessment of the findings of the Trial Court, found that the plaintiffs have not made out a case and hence, by a judgment and decree d