The appellate court determined that the First Appellate Court erred in not properly evaluating the ownership evidence, resulting in incorrect distribution of property rights and affirming the Plaintiff's sole entitlement to the entire property under contested Sale Deeds.

JUDGMENT :

P. Dhanabal, J.

The Second Appeal has been preferred as against the decree and judgment passed by the Principal District Judge, Ariyalur in A.S. No.48 of 2014 dated 16.02.2015, wherein the appellant herein, being the Plaintiff, has filed a Suit for the relief of declaration and permanent injunction as against the defendants / respondents herein. The trial Court decreed the Suit in O.S. No.315 of 2010 on the file of District Munsif, Jayamkondam. Aggrieved by the said decree and judgment, the defendants have preferred an appeal in A.S. No.48 of 2014 on the file of the Principal District Judge, Ariyalur and the First Appellate Court modified the decree by partly allowing the appeal. Aggrieved by the said decree and judgment, the Plaintiff has preferred this second appeal.

2. The case of the Plaintiff before the trial Court is that the Suit property was purchased by the father of the Plaintiff namely Marudha Muthu through a Sale Deed dated 05.06.1930 from one Azhagammal, wife of Mr. Duraisamy. After the demise of his father, the Plaintiff is in the possession and enjoyment of the property. The defendants are no way connected to the Suit property. The Plaintiff has no male issues. Taking advantage of the same, the defendants are attempting to grab the property of the Plaintiff. The Plaintiff and his father have been under the enjoyment of the property by growing trees and cultivating. There is a live fence all over the boundaries of the property. For the said property, Patta No.1103 has been issued and the Plaintiff is also paying kist to the suit property. While so, the defendants attempted to interfere with the possession and enjoying of the property and tried to remove the trees.Therefore, filed the Suit.

3. The case of the defendants before the trial Court is that the entire property does not belong to the Plaintiff and the same is not under the exclusive possession and enjoyment of the Plaintiff. The vendor of the Plaintiff’s father namely Azhagammal, wife of Mr. Duraisamy Padayachi had no right to dispose the entire extent of the Suit property. Therefore, the Sale Deed dated 05.06.1930 is not a genuine document and is not valid in the eye of law. The father of the plaintiff namely Marudha Muthu had another son namely Manickam and later he died. The said Late Manickam had a son namely Kaliyaperumal and five daughters. Suppressing the same, the present Suit has been filed. In fact, the Suit property is originally belonged to Duraisamy Padayachi, Thandavaraya Padayachi and Krishna Padayachi. The said Duraisamy Padayachi had one son namely Sivasamy. Mr. Thandavaraya Padayachi had a son namely Natesa Padayachi. Thereby, the property was enjoyed by Sivasamy Padayachi, Natesa Padayachi and Krishna Padayachi and a joint Patta No.149 was issued in the name of above three persons. The mother of Sivasamy is the said Azhagammal, wife of Duraisamy Padayachi, who sold the Suit property to the father of the Plaintiff. The defendants 1 and 2 are the sons of Ranganathan, who is one of the sons of Natesa Padayachi and the 4^th defendant is the wife of Kaliyamoorthy, who is another son of Natesa Padayachi. The 4^th defendant has one daughter. Krishna Padayachi died without any issues. The said Natesa Padayachi also died. Therefore, the property belongs to Krishna Padayachi was enjoyed by the legal heirs of Natesa Padayachi. The property to an extent of 16 cents belongs to Natesan Padayachi was also enjoyed by his legal heirs 1, 2 and 4 defendants. Therefore, the defendants 1,2 and 4 are entitled to 32 cents and they partitioned all the above said 32 cents between them through oral partition. As per the oral partition, the western s