The appellant failed to establish valid ownership through the Will and related agreements, leading to the dismissal of the appeal.

JUDGMENT

Challenging the decree and judgment of the trial Court dismissing the suit for declaration and recovery of possession, the present appeal has been filed by the unsuccessful plaintiff.

2. The parties are arrayed as per their own ranking before the trial Court

3. The suit property was originally owned by one DurairajPillai. The plaintiff is the son-in-law of the the said DurairajPillai. According to the plaintiff, the said DurairajPillaiexecuted a Will on 19.09.1979 before a notary public at Padang, Indonesia bequeathing all his available properties in favour of his wife Mary Marnish. The said DurairajPillaidied on 26.05.1985. Therefore, his wife Mary Marnish became entitled not only to the suit property, but also to properties in Indonesia. The daughters and sons of DurairajPillaihave been given monetary support by their father. Therefore, the suit properties and other properties have been bequeathed in the name of Mary Marnish. On 25.01.1996, the plaintiff and his mother-in-law had entered into an agreement for sale of the suit property for a total sale consideration of Rs.16 lakhs and the plaintiff had paid entire sale consideration on the same day. Later, the said Mary Marnish executed a Special Power of Attorney in favour of her daughter Maria Vimala on 25.01.1996 besides she also executed necessary receipts dated 04.01.1996 and 25.01.1996 in favour of the plaintiff for the receipt of sale consideration from the plaintiff. At the instigation of the defendant, the said Mary Marnish delayed in getting necessary permission from the Reserve Bank of India and it delayed the execution of the sale deed. Hence, the plaintiff has filed a suit in O.S.No.1361 of 2000 for permanent injunction on the file of the Principal District Judge, Coimbatore against his mother-in-law and the defendant from alienating the property. Thereafter, the mother-in-law realized the truth and sent necessary letters to the plaintiff on 17.04.2002 and 26.06.2002 to go ahead with the sale as per the power of attorney. Therefore, the property has been registered in favour of the plaintiff through power of attorney, namely his wife. Hence, the plaintiff has withdrawn the earlier suit. The plaintiff is in possession of the southern side vacant area of the suit property. Mary Marnish executed a sale deed transferring the suit property in favour of the plaintiff through her power agent Mari Vimala on 02.02.2004. While so, the first defendant, who is one of the daughter of the plaintiff's vendor is in possession and enjoyment of the built up portion of the suit property as a tenant. Inspite of several requests being made by the plaintiff to vacate the property, the defendants are illegally squatting in the property. Hence, the suit for declaration and permanent injunction.

4. The suit has been resisted by the first defendant interlia contending that the suit is undervalued. Though the property belong to her father, he has executed a Will on 19.09.1979 and it is her contention that the suit property has not been bequeathed in favour of her mother. The agreement dated 25.01.1996 for sale of the property for a sum of Rs.16 lakhs and the power deed is also denied. After the death of her father, her mother is entitled to 1/3^rd share in the property. Her mother died on 07.02.2006 and hence, she is entitled to 5/12^th share including her 1/12^th share. Further, her mother had also executed a registered sale deed 13.05.2011 in her favour and she is entitled to 9/12^th share in the suit property.

5. The second defendant also denied the case of the plaintiff. According to him, Durairaj Pillai executed a Will dated 19.09.1979. His father died on 07.02.2006. It is his further contention that his pa