IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS CORAM:

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE RMT.TEEKAA RAMAN A.S.No.943 of 2010 and M.P.No.1 of 2010 and Cross Objection No.59 of 2011 Judgment reserved on Judgment pronounced on

22.02.2024 03.06.2024 A.S.No.943 of 2010:-

Manivannan S/o.Kannayya Nattar ... Appellant Vs.

1. Karthikeyan S/o.Kannayya Nattar

2. The District Registrar Cuddalore.

3. The Sub-Registrar, Joint-I Cuddalore.

4. The Cuddalore Municipality rep. by its Commissioner Cuddalore.

5. The Superintending Engineer Cuddalore Electricity Distribution Circle Tamil Nadu Electricity Board Cuddalore. ... Respondents Cross Objection No.59 of 2011:-

Karthikeyan S/o.Kannayya Nattar ... Cross Appellant Vs.

1. Manivannan S/o.Kannayya Nattar

2. The District Registrar Cuddalore.

3. The Sub-Registrar, Joint-I Cuddalore.

4. The Cuddalore Municipality rep. by its Commissioner Cuddalore.

5. The Superintending Engineer Cuddalore Electricity Distribution Circle Tamil Nadu Electricity Board Cuddalore. ... Respondents Prayer This First Appeal is filed under Section 96 and Order XLI Rule 1 of Code of Civil Procedure to set aside the judgment and decree dated 30.07.2009 in O.S.No.93 of 2005 on the file of the Court of the Principal District Judge, Cuddalore.

Cross Objection is filed under Order XLI Rule 33 of CPC to cross appeal against the judgment and decree dated 30.07.2009 in O.S.No.93 of

2005 on the file of the Court of the Principal District Judge, Cuddalore.

For Appellant in AS and For R1 in Cross Objection : Mr.R.Gururaj For R1 in AS and For Cross Appellant in Cross Objection : Mr.P.Valliappan Senior Counsel for Mr.G.RM.Palaniappan For R4 in AS and Cross Objection : Mr.P.Srinivas For R2 & R3 in AS and Cross Objection : Mr.V.Ramesh Government Advocate For R5 in AS and Cross Objection : Mrs.J.Hemalatha Gajapathy *******

J U D G M E N T

An unsuccessful plaintiff is the appellant herein.

2. For the sake of convenience, parties are referred to as per their litigative status before the trial Court.

3(a). The plaintiff filed a suit seeking the relief of declaration of title to the suit property and for permanent injunction against the first defendant from interfering with the peaceful possession and enjoyment of the suit property. The suit was originally filed as informa pauperis, which was allowed by the trial Court by an order dated 05.10.2005 and the same was numbered as O.S.No.93 of 2005.

3(b). The plaintiff and the first defendant are the brothers. One Dakshinamurthy and Baskaran are the other brothers and one Amudha, Girija and Kavitha are the three sisters of the plaintiff and the first defendant.

4. The plaint proceeds on the basis that since the plaintiff is virtually blind, his father through a Will dated 21.08.2000 bequeathed the suit property in his favour and Ex.A1 - Will dated 21.08.2000 was duly registered and registration copy of Will is Ex.A12 and the plaintiff is residing in the said premises. As the first defendant is trying to disturb his possession, the present suit has been filed.

5. The first defendant filed the written statement denying the title of the plaintiff inter alia contending that Ex.A1 - Will was duly cancelled by Ex.B1 on 27.11.2000 and on the very same day, Late Kannaiyan Nattar, who is father of plaintiff and the first defendant executed a registered sale deed in favour of first defendant under Ex.B2. Based upon the same, the first defendant had effected mutation in the Revenue Records and filed Ex.B3 to Ex.B9 and also filed Ex.B10, which is a petition copy of O.P.No.140 of 2001 wherein father Kannaiyan Nattar originally filed a petition to set aside the sale deed marked as Ex.B2, which was executed by him in favour of the first defendant. However, he filed a memo for not pressing the O.PNo.140 of 2001 which was marked as Ex.B11 and certified copies of petition and memo of not pressing O.P.No.140 of 2001 were marked as Ex.B12 and Ex.B13.

6. The trial Court has framed an issue as to whether the plaintiff or the defendant was in possession of th