Judgment :- This Second Appeal arises out of the concurrent findings of the Courts below decreeing Plaintiffs suit for Declaration and Permanent Injunction. Unsuccessful first Defendant is the Appellant. 2. Suit property is 3 cents – Plot No.18 – S.No.159/3 [present S.No.159/20] originally belonged to Kesava Gounder. Plaintiff and Defendants 1,3 to 7 are sons and daughters of Kesava Gounder through first and second wife as noted below:- Kesava Gounder | | Poongavanammal Chinnammal (1st wife) (2nd Wife) | | --------------------------- Parvathi (Plaintiff) | | Ramasamy Dhanapal (died) = Sakunthala = Anjalai | | | | | Sarumathi Sangamitharai Sarulatha Priyadharshini (D4) (D5) (D6) (D7) .3. Case of Plaintiff is that suit property belonged to Kesva Gounder and the same was allotted to him under Ex.A2 Proceedings Na.Ka.5/8256/72 dated 3. 1972 in his capacity as Ex-Serviceman. Kesava Gounder settled the suit property infavour of Plaintiff under Ex.A1 settlement deed (02.01.1982). From the date of settlement, Plaintiff is in possession and enjoyment of the suit property by putting up thatched house and at the time of filing of the suit, suit property was then vacant site. Patta (Ex.A4) was also issued infavour of the Plaintiff. First Defendant is the wife of Ramasamy who is son of Kesava Gounder through his first wife Poongavanammal. Without any right or interest in the property, Ramasamy executed Ex.B1-Gift deed (23. 1989) infavour of his wife. On objection by the first Defendant, Patta infavour of the Plaintiff was cancelled on 29. 1995 and in the revenue records, suit property was shown as Gramanatham. Case of Plaintiff is that she is in possession and enjoyment of the suit property and Government itself having assigned the land to Plaintiffs father is estopped from declaring the suit property as Natham and hence, Plaintiff filed the suit for Declaration and Permanent Injunction. 4. Denying genuineness of Ex.A1-settlement deed, first Defendant filed written statement contending that the settlement deed was executed by impersonation and in a forged manner and therefore, Ex.A1 settlement deed is not valid in law and Plaintiff cannot claim any right or interest. Case of first Defendant is that suit property was assigned to Kesava Gounder and thereafter, the property was enjoyed by Kesava Gounder and his son Ramasamy, husband of first Defendant as joint family property and therefore, the said Kesava Gounder has no right to execute Ex.A1 settlement deed infavour of Plaintiff. Case of first Defendant is that suit property was assigned to Kesava Gounder and thereafter, the property was enjoyed by Kesava Gounder and his son Ramasamy, husband of first Defendant as joint family property and therefore, the said Kesava Gounder has no right to execute Ex.A1 settlement deed infavour of Plaintiff. According to first Defendant, settlement deed is not valid in law, since settlement deed was executed within 10 years from the date of assignment which is against the conditions of the assignment. First defendant further averred that Plaintiff never enjoyed the suit property, since she was residing at Neiveli. According to the first Defendant ever since the date of execution of Ex.B1-Gift deed, first Defendant is in enjoyment of the suit property and therefore, Plaintiff is not entitled to the relief sought for. 5. Second Defendant Government filed written statement contending that the suit property was assigned to Kesava Gounder in his capacity as Ex-Serviceman and he had no right to gave the suit property and nobody has right over the property. Since the suit property is declared as Natham, Plaintiff is not entitled to the relief sought for. .6. Third Defendant filed written statement denying execution of Ex.A1-settlement deed. According to the third Defendant, third Defendants husband late Dhanapal and Kesava Gounder were in joint possession and enjoyment of the suit property and therefore, Plaintiff is not entitled to any relief. 7. On the above pleadings, eight Issues were framed. On the side of Plaintiff, PWs.1 to 3 were examined. Exs.A1 to A6 were marked. On the side of the Defendants, DWs.1 to 5 were examined and Exs.B1 to B4 were marked. 8. Upon consideration of evidence, trial court held that the suit property having been assigned infavour of Kesava Gounder-Ex-serviceman and it was his self-acquired property. Trial Court further held that once the suit property is classified as house site, the same cannot be converted in to Gramanatham. Upholding Ex.A1-settlement deed, trial Court decreed the suit. Aggrieved by decreeing of the suit, first Defendant filed A.S.No.21/2004. Observing that suit property is self-acquired property of Kesava Gounder and that there is nothing to indicate that suit property was enjoyed as joint family property, lower Appellate Court held that first Defendant cannot claim any right or title in the suit property. Confirming the Judgment of the trial Court, lower Appellate Court dismissed the appeal preferred by the first Defendant. Confirming the Judgment of the trial Court, lower Appellate Court dismissed the appeal preferred by the first Defendant. 9. Challenging the concurrent findings of Courts below, first Defendant has preferred this Second Appeal. At the time of admission of Second Appeal, the following substantial questions of law were formulated for consideration:- "1. Whether the Courts below are right in decreeing the suit for declaration and injunction, when the plaintiff failed to prove possession for the suit property? 2. Whether the Courts below are right in decreeing the suit when Ex.A1 alleged to have been executed by Kesava Gounder in favour of plaintiff is not proved as per manner known to law? 3. Whether the Courts below are right in decreeing the suit when the plaintiff failed to prove the delivery of possession of the suit property or the Gift Deed under Section 124 of Transfer of Property Act?" 10. Mr.S.D.Balaji, learned counsel for the Appellant-first Defendant contended that Courts below have not properly appreciated the evidence of DWs.1 to 5 and Ex.A1-settlement deed was not proved in the manner known to law. It was further argued that Plaintiff has not adduced any evidence to prove delivery of possession of the suit property under Sec.124 of Transfer of Property Act and therefore, Courts below were not right in decreeing the suit. 11. Onbehalf of the Respondent-Plaintiff, Mr.C.Selvaraj, learned Senior Counsel submitted that the suit property was assigned to Kesava Gounder under Ex.A2 and that the suit property is proved to be the self-acquired property and therefore, there is no question of suit property as joint family property. It was further submitted that once the property was assigned to Kesava Gounder in his capacity as Ex-serviceman, Government was not justified in reclassifying it as Natham. It was further argued that upon analysis of evidence and materials, Courts below recorded concurrent findings and the same cannot be interfered with. 12. Under Ex.A2-assignment order (3. 1972), suit property was assigned to Kesava Gounder who was an Ex-serviceman. As pointed out by the Courts below, Ex.A2 does not indicate that the assignment was intended for the benefit of joint family. Absolutely, no evidence that consideration if any for getting the assignment was paid out of the joint family funds. 12. Under Ex.A2-assignment order (3. 1972), suit property was assigned to Kesava Gounder who was an Ex-serviceman. As pointed out by the Courts below, Ex.A2 does not indicate that the assignment was intended for the benefit of joint family. Absolutely, no evidence that consideration if any for getting the assignment was paid out of the joint family funds. Since the suit property was assigned to Kesava Gounder in his capacity as Ex-serviceman, Courts below recorded concurrent findings of fact that the suit property is not a joint family property. 13. To prove Ex.A1-settlement deed, PW3-Muruga Pillai scribe was examined and Courts below accepted his evidence as convincing. Based upon the evidence of PWs.1 to 3, Courts below held that Ex.A1-settlement deed is true and genuine. Once it is proved that the suit property is self-acquired property of Kesava Gounder, husband of first Defendant Ramasamy cannot claim any right or title to the suit property when Kesava Gounder settled the property infavour of his daughter under Ex.A1-settlement deed. First Defendants husband could have no further right to execute Gift deed infavour of first Defendant. Therefore, Ex.B1-Gift deed (23. 1989) has no evidentiary value. Based upon Ex.B1-Gift deed, first Defendant cannot successfully resist the suit and the Courts below rightly negatived the defence plea. 14. Upon analysis of evidence and materials, Courts below recorded concurrent findings that Plaintiff has proved her title and possession. In a catena of decisions, Supreme Court has held that as general rule, where the findings of the Courts below based on evidence and when the Courts below recorded concurrent findings of fact, High Court will not normally interfere with the concurrent findings of the Courts below exercising jurisdiction under Sec.100 CPC. [See 2009 (4) LW 125 (Narayanan Rajendran and another v. Lekshmy Sarojini and others]. 15. In the result, the Judgment of the lower Appellate Court in A.S.No.21/2004 dated 20.12.2005 on the file of Subordinate Court, Kallakurichi (arising out of the Judgment in O.S.No.8/1997 dated 212. 2003 on the file of II Additional District Munsif Court, Kallakurichi) is confirmed and the Second Appeal is dismissed. No costs.