Plaintiff failed to prove title chain or possession; attestation alone insufficient for knowledge; no substantial question of law in second appeal.

JUDGMENT

The plaintiff, in a suit for declaration and for permanent injunction which has been dismissed by the trial Court and confirmed by the first Appellate Court, is the appellant in the present second appeal.

2. I have heard Mr.N.Kamesh, learned counsel for the appellant and Mr.G.Sridharan, learned counsel for the respondent.

3. The second appeal has not been admitted as on date and I have heard the learned counsel for the parties and also perused the entire records, including the judgments of the Courts below, as well as the pleadings before the trial Court.

4. The case of the plaintiff is that the suit property, amongst other properties are ancestral properties of his father Veeramalai Gounder. The said Veeramalai Gounder executed a settlement deed on 08.11.1984 in favour of the plaintiff. As the plaintiff was minor, one Kaniya Gounder was appointed as the guardian of the plaintiff. The plaintiff has been in possession and enjoyment of the suit property for several years. Though the suit property was subdivided as survey No.41/4 and patta was wrongly issued to one Muthusamy Gounder, the plaintiff alone has been in possession and enjoyment of the property and on coming to know of the incorrect patta, the plaintiff in 2014, approached the revenue officials for necessary mutation in his name. Muthusamy Gounder in whose name patta was issued also died intestate, without any issues. The defendants have no right over the suit property. They demanded to purchased the suit property and since the plaintiff refused, they have claimed right under Muthusamy Gounder and attempted to interfere with the plaintiff's possession of the suit property. The plaintiff gave a police complaint and also lodged a petition before the Village Panchayat, alleging illegal attempts on the part of the defendants. Hence, the plaintiff filed the suit seeking for declaration and consequently for permanent injunction. 5. The suit was resisted by the defendants, contending that the defendants are related to plaintiff on their paternal side and a common ancestor, viz., Annavi Gounder and in respect of the suit property, patta was in the name of Muthusamy Gounder, the paternal uncle of the defendants and after his demise, the defendants have become the absolute owners of the suit property and the plaintiff's father did not have any right in favour of the settlement deed and that the plaintiff has no cause of action to file the suit.

6. At trial, the plaintiff examined himself as P.W.1 and and one Thangavel examined as P.W.2 and 11 documents were marked as Ex.A1 to Ex.A11. On the side of the defendants, the first defendant examined himself as D.W.1 and four documents were marked as Ex.B1 to Ex.B4.

7. The trial Court found that the plaintiff was not in possession and had not established how his father became entitled to S.F.No.41/4 and dismissed the suit.

8. Aggrieved by the dismissal of the suit, the plaintiff filed A.S.No.

227 of 2020 before the Subordinate Judge, Manapparai. The first Appellate Court confirmed the findings of the trial Court and dismissed the appeal.

9. As against the concurrent findings, the present second appeal has been filed.

10. Arguments of the learned counsel for the appellant/plaintiff: The learned counsel for the appellant/plaintiff would state that the Courts below have not taken note of the fact that in Ex.A7 mortgage deed executed in favour of third party, the second defendant was a witness to the said document and therefore, the defendants were fully aware of the fact that the ownership of the suit property in SF.No.41/4 was only with the plaintiff's family. He would further state that for proving possession, P.W.2 has been examined and P.W.2 is the