JUDGMENT

1.1 The defendants 18 to 20, in a suit for declaration of title, recovery of possession and mesne profits, have come forward with this appeal.

1.2 The suit was initially decreed, challenging which the defendants had preferred A.S.No.27 of 1984. The first Appellate Court remanded the matter back to the trial Court, after which, the trial Court decreed the suit yet again. Challenging this decree the defendants 18 to 20 have preferred A.S.No.13 of

2001, and that came to be dismissed. Hence, this second appeal.

2.1 The suit properties are 15 in number, and it is admitted on either side that it originally belonged to one Unnamalai Ammal. Her son is Veerappa Chetty. He is the first defendant in the suit. He was married to Rathinammal, she is the plaintiff. The couple had a son Arunachalam @ Kannu. Besides, they had a daughter named Kalaiselvi, who is the 15th defendant.

2.2 Be that as it may, on 30.12.1964 Vide Ext.A.1, settlement deed, Unnamalai Ammal had settled the suit property in favour of her grandson Arunachalam alias Kannu. On 18.05.1976, Arunachalam died, leaving behind his mother Rathinamammal (the plaintiff) to succeed to his estate. On the strength of her title as stated above, the plaintiff had laid the suit for declaration of her title. The prayer for possession of the suit property comes in the context of various tenants in the suit property, who originally were arrayed as defendants 2 to 14.

3. During the pendency of the suit, the first defendant Veerappa Chetty died. Hence, Kalaiselvi, born to the plaintiff and the first defendant as referred to above, was brought in as the legal representative. Besides, defendants 16 to 21 also came to be impleaded as the heirs of the first defendant. Of them, defendants 16 and 17 are stated to be the sisters of Veerappa Chetty. The other part of the dispute concerns defendants 18 to 20. They were alleged to be the illegitimate children born to Veerppa Chetty through the 21st defendant.

4.1 The suit was contested chiefly by the first defendant Veerappa Chetty. The primary defense that he had taken in his written statement was that Ext.A.1, settlement deed which his mother Unnamalai Ammal had executed in favour of his son Arunachalam was a sham and nominal document, and that it was never acted upon. Arunachalam died when he was barely a year and a half old. And, this defendant had not accepted any such settlement on behalf of the deceased Arunachalam.

4.2 Defendants 2 to 4, 6 to 13 in their written statement claim that they were the tenants of the suit properties under Unnamalai Ammal and that they were willing to pay the rent to whoever, who the Court directs.

4.3 The 21st defendant had filed a written statement, wherein she allege that on 11-02-1973, Veerappa Chetty had married her, that through him she had begotten defendants 18 to 20, and that on 23-01-1986 Veerappa Chetty had executed a Will in their favour, and died on 17-06-1986. She claimed that the suit properties never belonged to Unnamalai Ammal, and added that on 10-05-1982, the first defendant along with her sister, sold items 6 to 11 in the plaint scheduled properties to the 7th defendant (who was previously the tenant), and that the 15th item of suit property was sold by him to a certain Ramaswamy on 05-05-1982. In addition, she pleaded that items 13 and 14 were purchased by first defendant's father Arunalachalam Chetty in a Court-auction sale in O.S.1/1923.

5.1 When the matter went for trial, both sides adduced oral and documentary evidence. Of the four documents that the plaintiff had produced, she relied on Ext.A.1, the settlement deed executed by Unnamalai Ammal followed by Ext.A.3 and Ext.A.4, the sale deeds that the first defendant had executed on the basis of Ext.A.1. The defendants have examined as many as 11 witnesses, of who Veerappa Chetty himself was D.W.1. The 21st defendant examined herself as D.W.5.

5.2 During trial, an attempt was made to prove that Unnamalai Ammal had cancelled Ext.A-1 settlement deed