- (1.)AGGRIEVED by the concurrent finding of the Courts below, the defendant in a suit for declaration and consequential permanent injunction, has preferred this Second Appeal.
(2.)THE first plaintiff is the wife and the second and third plaintiffs are the sons of one Rajagopal. The suit property was purchased by the said Rajagopal by virtue of a sale deed dated 15.5.1981 executed by one P.S. Damodharan and marked as Ex.A.1. During his lifetime and after his death, the plaintiffs have been in possession and enjoyment of the suit property. The property purchased under Ex.A.1 is the adjacent property in which the plaintiffs and the said Rajagopal were living prior to the purchase. As the defendant, who has no manner of right whatsoever, attempted to trespass over the suit property when the plaintiffs started construction in the suit property, the suit was filed.
The suit was resisted by the defendant contending that the suit property originally belonged to one Jaganathan, who got the same by virtue of a sale deed dated 09.9.1934 marked as Ex.A.8. From the date of purchase, the said Jaganathan was in possession and enjoyment of the same. The defendant claims to be the sister 's daughter of the said Jaganathan and claims to be in possession of the property. Jaganathan died issueless in the year 1951 and prior to his death, he had settled the property orally in favour of the defendant. Therefore, it was contended that the plaintiff had no right or title in the suit property and prayed for dismissal of the suit.

(3.)BEFORE the trial Court, the first plaintiff examined herself as P.W.1 besides examining one Parasuraman as P.W.2 and one Chandrasekar as P.W.3 and marked Exs. A.1 to A.9. On the side of the defendant, the defendant examined herself as D.W.1 besides examining four more witnesses as D.Ws. 2 to 5, marked Exs. B.1 to B.21.