J U D G M E N T

The defendant in O.S.No.19 of 2014, on the file of the District Munsif Court, Paramakudi has come up with this Second Appeal. Challenge is to the Judgment and Decree of the Appellate Court made in A.S.No.65 of 2017, in and by which, the Appellate Court reversed the Decree granted in O.S.No.19 of 2014.

2. The Suit in O.S.No.19 of 2014 was filed by the plaintiff, claiming the relief of declaration of title and injunction. According to the plaintiff, the suit property originally belonged to one Janaki Ammal, who had purchased the same under Sale Deed dated 05.09.1949 from one Nagaiah vagayara. After the death of the said Janaki Ammal in the year 1955 (Wrongly mentioned as 1945 in the plaint), the property devolved on her only son Muthiah Pillai. The said Muthiah Pillai died 20 years prior to the suit, i.e around 1994, leaving behind the husband of the plaintiff, namely, Karuppiah Pillai, who is his only son. Claiming that the sisters of Karuppiah Pillai had accepted the title of Karuppiah Pillai, the plaintiff would set up title in herself under the settlement deed, said to have been executed by the said Karuppiah Pillai on 28.03.2003. It is further case of the plaintiff that though the settlement deed dated 28.03.2003 described the property correctly, the survey number was given as 43/2 instead of 43/11. This necessitated the said Karuppiah Pillai to execute another instrument of settlement dated 19.01.2007, with correct survey number. Claiming that the defendant attempted to interfere with her possession, setting up title in her favour, under a Sale Deed dated 03.02.2006, said to have been executed by the plaintiff's son Nithyanantham, the plaintiff sued for the above reliefs.

3.The suit was resisted by the defendant contending that the suit property is the ancestral property of Karuppiah Pillai and that an oral partition between him and his son Nithyanantham, an extent of 43 cents was allotted to Nithyanantham, which was sold by Nithyanantham to the defendant under a Sale Deed dated 03.02.2006. It is claimed that the Settlement Deeds dated 28.03.2003 and 19.01.2007 executed by Karuppiah Pillai were created by the plaintiff to set up tittle in herself. It should be pointed out that the execution of those documents by Karuppiah Pillai, was not specifically denied in the written statement.

4.At trial, one Kasi Viswanathan was examined as PW 1 and three other witnesses were examined as PWs 2 to 4. Exs.A1 to A13 were marked. The defendant was examined as DW 1 and Karuppusamy was examined as DW 2. Exs.B1 to B4 were marked. Exs.C1 to C4 were also marked through witnesses.

5.The trial Court, upon consideration of the evidence on record, concluded that the plaintiff has not established her case. The trial Court accepted the claim of the defendant that the property being an ancestral property of Karuppiah Pillai, the settlement deeds executed by him are not valid. On the above conclusions, the learned trial Judge dismissed the suit.

6.Aggrieved, the plaintiff preferred an appeal in A.S.No.65 of 2017, before the Subordinate Court, Paramakudi. The learned Appellate Judge, upon reappreciation of the evidence on record, concluded that the property having been inherited by Karuppiah Pillai from his paternal grand mother cannot be termed as ancestal property in his hands. If the property is self acquired in the hands of Karuppiah Pillai, his son Nithyanantham would not get right by birth, so as to enable him to alienate the property even during the life time of his father Karuppiah Pillai. The lower Appellate Court allowed the appeal and decreed the suit as prayed for. Hence, the Second Appeal.

7. I have heard Mr. H.Thayumanaswamy, learned counsel for the appellant. He would vehemently contend that the lower Appellate Court was not right in accepting the settlement deeds, which have been marked as Ex.A2 and Ex.A3. Since no attesting witness was examined and the documents were not proved under Section 68 of the Evidence Act. He would