JUDGMENT :

S. Sounthar, J.

The unsuccessful plaintiffs in the suit are the appellants.

2. The appellants herein filed a suit for declaration that they are Legal Heirs of deceased Perumal Naidu entitled to succeed to his estate and also for mandatory injunction directing the 1^st defendant-Tahsildar, Bhuvanagiri Taluk, to issue Legal Heirship Certificate of deceased Perumal Naidu in favour of the plaintiffs. The suit was dismissed by the Trial Court. The first appeal filed by the plaintiffs was also dismissed by the First Appellate Court. Aggrieved by the concurrent finding, the plaintiffs have come before this Court.

3. According to the appellants/plaintiffs, the 1^st plaintiff is the wife of one Govindasamy, who is brother of deceased Perumal Naidu. The 2^nd plaintiff is the eldest daughter of 1^st plaintiff and Govindasamy. The 1^st plaintiff had a son by name Srinivasan, who died on 25.09.2016. The plaintiffs 3, 4 and 5 are legal heirs of said Srinivasan (wife, daughter and son).

4. According to the plaintiffs, the said Perumal Naidu died intestate on 29.07.1985 leaving behind his wife-Aandal as his only Legal Heir. She enjoyed the suit properties left by Perumal Naidu and she died intestate on 30.12.2014. Since Perumal Naidu and Aandal had no issues, the properties of Perumal Naidu were possessed and enjoyed by the plaintiffs namely Legal Heirs of deceased brother of Perumal Naidu namely Govindasamy. When the plaintiffs attempted to alienate the suit properties of Perumal Naidu devolved on them, the 3^rd defendant claimed himself as son of Perumal Naidu and raised objection. In these circumstances, the above suit was filed by the plaintiffs.

5. The 3^rd defendant filed a written statement admitting the relationship of the plaintiffs with Perumal Naidu as averred in the plaint. However, it was his case that during lifetime of first wife of Perumal Naidu, he married 3^rd defendant’s mother and sister of first wife namely Kamalam. The 3^rd defendant born to Perumal Naidu through above said Kamalam and hence, he is the Legal Heir of Perumal Naidu entitled to succeed to his estate. The 3^rd defendant also claimed that after death of Perumal Naidu, he has been in possession and enjoyment of the estate of the deceased by mortgaging the same with a person living in the very same Village. On these pleadings, the 3^rd defendant sought for dismissal of the suit.

6. The Trial Court based on the pleadings of the parties, formulated the following issues for consideration:-

7. Thereafter, on 27.03.2019 the above said issues were modified by the Trial Court and the same is extracted below:-

8. Before the Trial Court, the 2^nd plaintiff was examined as PW.1 and one Manickam was examined as PW.2. On behalf of the plaintiffs, 6 documents were marked as Exs.A1 to A6. The 3^rd defendant was examined as DW.1 and two other witnesses were examined as DW.2 and DW.3. On behalf of the defendants, 5 documents were examined as Ex.B1 to B5.

9. The Trial Court on appreciation of oral and documentary evidence available on record, came to the conclusion that the plaintiffs failed to lead any evidence to show that the 3^rd defendant was not son of Perumal Naidu and hence, dismissed the suit. Aggrieved by the said finding, the plaintiff preferred first appeal in A.S.No.85 of 2019 on the file of the Subordinate Court, Chidambaram. The First Appellate Court came to the conclusion that the 3^rd defendant failed to prove that he is son of Perumal Naidu out of wedlock with Kamalam Ammal. However, the First Appellate Court held that the plaintiffs cannot claim themselves as Legal Heirs of the deceased Perumal Naidu and dismissed the appeal. Aggrieved by the same, the plaintiffs have come before this Court by way of filing the second appeal.

10. The learned counsel appearing for the appellants would submit that Perumal Naidu and his wife Aandal died issueless. Therefore, the properties of Perumal Naidu will devolve on Class-II heirs namely the plaintiffs and the said rule of succession rec