J U D G M E N T

This second appeal is filed by the defendant in Original Suit No.107 of 2005 on the file of the Additional Civil Judge and JMFC at Kollegal, decreeing the suit of plaintiff, and being aggrieved by the same, the defendant has preferred Regular Appeal No.17 of 2010 on the file of the Senior Civil Judge and JMFC at Kollegal and the First Appellate Court, by its judgment and decree dated 18th December, 2013, dismissed the appeal and as such, confirmed the judgment and decree dated 27th October, 2010 passed by the trial Court. Being aggrieved by the judgment and decree passed by the courts below, the defendant has preferred this instant second appeal.

2. For the sake of convenience, parties in this appeal are referred to as per their status before the trial Court.

3. Plaint averments are that, plaintiffs are the daughters of one late Savariyappan. It is stated that, the plaintiffs had a brother called S. Bilavendran. Savariyappan and his elder brother Mariyanna @ Japamale, were staying together and they had certain immovable properties at Marathalli Village, Kollegala Taluk. It is further averred in the plaint that there was partition between Savariyappan and Mariyanna and thereby 3 acre 52 cents of land was allotted to Mariyanna and 3 acre 32 cents of land was allotted to Savariyappan. Mariyanna had no issues and thereby, he had adopted Bilavendran S/o Savariyappan when he was ten years old and thereby, S. Bilavendran became adopted son of Mariyanna, and Mariyanna identified as to the adoptive father of S. Bilavendran. It is the case of the plaintiff that their father Savariyappan had built a house in the property allotted to him by leaving a space in front of the said house and in the said space, Savariyappan had constructed a shop measuring ¾ square and leased out to one Muttu for running a barber shop. The said Muttu, had further sub-leased the said portion of the property to defendant. It is further pleaded in the plaint that, the defendant started to put up construction in the said space, which is the suit schedule property. Plaintiffs averred that they tried to stop the illegal construction being put up by the defendant, however, they came to know that the defendant has purchased the suit schedule property from S. Bilavendran as per Registered sale deed dated 15th March, 2003. It is the contention of plaintiffs that they are the absolute owners of the suit schedule property and as S.Bilavendran was adopted by Mariyanna, therefore, he has no right to convey the same in favour of the defendant and it is further stated by plaintiffs that the said sale deed is not a binding on them, as also the said S. Bilavendran has no right or title to the estate of late Savariyappan-father of plaintiffs (his natural father). Therefore, plaintiffs filed suit for declaration and for consequential relief of permanent injunction.

4. After service of summons, defendant entered appearance and filed detailed written statement contending that the suit schedule property is the self-acquired property of late Bilavendran and he had got absolute right to sell the suit schedule property and therefore, the sale deed dated 15th March, 2003 executed by late Bilavendran in his favour for sale consideration of Rs.30,500/- by way of registered deed, is a valid transfer of suit schedule property by S. Bilavendran in favour of the defendant and thereby, the defendant is in possession and enjoyment of suit schedule property. It is the further defence of the defendant that late Bilavendran has executed four sale deeds in favour of John Peter S/o Sylvester, R. Shanti and also he has executed registered Will dated 25th May 2004, bequeathing certain property in favour of the plaintiffs as well as his wife Alfonsa Mary and therefore, it is further averred in the written statement by the defendant that after the death of Bilavendran, the plaintiff as well as Alfonsa Mary have not challenged the Will. It is the categorical defence of the defendant that,