Judgment : 1. This Memorandum of Second Appeal has been directed against the judgment and decree dated 27.6.2002 and made in A.S.No.7 of 1996 on the file of the learned Subordinate Judge, Dharmapuri, confirming the judgment and decree of the Trial Court, dated 30.1.1996 and made in O.S.No.22 of 1989 on the file of the learned District Munsif, Harur. 2. The first defendant in the suit is the appellant herein whereas the respondent is the plaintiff. The respondent/plaintiff appears to have filed the suit in O.S.No.22 of 1989 on the file of the learned District Munsif, Harur as against the appellant/first defendant and Divyan, seeking the relief of declaration and recovery of possession. 3. The suit was resisted by the appellant/first defendant. Ultimately, the Trial Court had proceeded to decree the suit in part with a finding that the respondent/plaintiff is entitled to half share in the land comprised in Survey No.4/9, measuring 4 acres 50 cents and also declared that she is entitled to 0.64 cents in the land comprised in Survey No.4/3. Two months time was given to surrender the possession. 4. The judgment and decree dated 30.1.1996 was challenged by the defendants 1 and 2 in A.S.No.7 of 1996 on the file of the learned Subordinate Judge, Dharmapuri. During the pendency of the appeal, the second defendant Divyan had passed away and since no relief was sought for against him, a Memorandum to that effect was filed before the First Appellate Court and the same was recorded and therefore, the first defendant, who is the appellant herein, alone has been prosecuting the appeal. 5. On hearing both sides, the learned Subordinate Judge, Dharmapuri was in harmonious agreement with the finding of the learned Trial Judge and therefore, he had proceeded to dismiss the appeal on 27.6.2002. Having been aggrieved by the judgment and decree of the First Appellate Court, the first defendant stands before this Court with this Second Appeal. 6. The Second Appeal came to be admitted on the following three substantial questions of law:- “(i) Whether the Courts below were right in declaring that the plaintiff was entitled to the suit property when she was not a legal heir as per the Indian Succession Act, to an intestate male or female? 6. The Second Appeal came to be admitted on the following three substantial questions of law:- “(i) Whether the Courts below were right in declaring that the plaintiff was entitled to the suit property when she was not a legal heir as per the Indian Succession Act, to an intestate male or female? (ii) Whether the Courts below were right in decreeing the suit when admittedly the plaintiff was out of possession for more than 16 years and the suit was then barred by limitation? (iii) Whether the Courts below erred in recognizing the plaintiff as the legal heir when she herself pleaded that she was brought up only like a daughter and was neither a step daughter or an adopted daughter?” 7. The conspectus of the facts:- The respondent/plaintiff’s grandfather is one Arokiyasamy. The said Arokiyasamy had begotten three children i.e., two sons and one daughter viz., (i) A.Arokiyasamy, (ii) Sowrimuthu and (iii) Loordhumary. The first respondent/plaintiff is the daughter of Loordhumary. One Madhalaiammal is the wife of Sowrimuthu. 8. Unfortunately, Sowrimuthu and his wife Madhalaiammal were not blessed with any child. Arokiyasamy has got four children viz., (i) David who is the appellant/first defendant herein, (ii) Fathima, (iii) Rita and (iv) Therasa. Since Sowrimuthu and Madhalaiammal were not having child, they had adopted the respondent/plaintiff as their daughter when she was at the age of four. They had also given the respondent/plaintiff in marriage and they were brought the respondent/plaintiff as if they were her father and mother. When they died in the year 1972, the plaintiff alone had performed all the funeral rituals. When Sowrimuthu was alive, he was working in Bangalore Electric Factory and therefore, after his demise, the respondent/plaintiff had received all his death-cum-retirement benefits along with his provident fund as she being the nominee. 9. Therefore, the entire property which stood in the name of her parents were entrusted with her. Since the respondent/plaintiff was residing at Bangalore as her husband was working there, she was not able to maintain the properties. Therefore, the properties specified in the plaint schedule were entrusted with the Village Panchayatdars, 10 years prior to the filing of the suit and therefore, she had permitted them to utilize the usufructs of the lands towards the welfare of the village. 10. Only on that condition, the said properties were entrusted with the Village Panchayatdars. Therefore, the properties specified in the plaint schedule were entrusted with the Village Panchayatdars, 10 years prior to the filing of the suit and therefore, she had permitted them to utilize the usufructs of the lands towards the welfare of the village. 10. Only on that condition, the said properties were entrusted with the Village Panchayatdars. In the interregnum, one Arokiyadas had claimed that he is the legal heir of the deceased Sowrimuthu and in this connection, he had filed a suit before the Bangalore Court. That was resisted by the respondent/plaintiff and subsequently, it was dismissed. 11. That on 5.6.1988, the respondent/plaintiff had approached the Pallipatti Village Panchayatdars and requested them to re-entrust the suit property. But they had abruptly refused to part with, saying that the properties were entrusted with the first defendant, who is the appellant herein and that the second defendant (since deceased) had been cultivating the land. 12. According to the respondent/plaintiff, the appellants/first defendant and the second defendant are the rank trespassers of the property and hence she was constrained to file the suit for declaration and recovery of possession. 13. The first appellant/first defendant had contested the suit by filing his written statement which was adopted by the second defendant (since deceased). He has admitted that the suit properties were belonged to his junior paternal uncle Sowrimuthu, and that the properties were his self-acquired properties. The said Sowrimuthu and his wife Madhalaiammal were not having any issue and therefore his (appellant) father Arokiyasamy and his Aunt Loordhumary are the heirs of the deceased Sowrimuthu. He has further contended that they had taken the properties into their possession and been cultivating. Subsequently, the appellant/first defendant’s father Arokiyasamy had passed away. After his demise, the appellant/first defendant, being the legal heir of the said Arokiyasamy and the Loordhumary, being the sister of the said Arokiyasamy, had been jointly enjoying the suit properties by paying revenue taxes to the Government. 14. In the meanwhile, one Arokiyadas had filed a suit in O.S.No.1061 of 1972 on the file of the learned District Munsif, Dharmapuri as against the appellant/first defendant as well as against Loordhumary, claiming that he is the only legal heir of the deceased Sowrimuthu. 14. In the meanwhile, one Arokiyadas had filed a suit in O.S.No.1061 of 1972 on the file of the learned District Munsif, Dharmapuri as against the appellant/first defendant as well as against Loordhumary, claiming that he is the only legal heir of the deceased Sowrimuthu. That suit was filed by him for declaration and injunction and similarly, the said Arokiyadas along with one Mariyadas had filed another suit in O.S.No.1194 of 1972 as seeking the relief of declaration and injunction. Both the suits were tried together and dismissed. 15. Challenging the judgment passed in the abovesaid suits, the said Arokiyadas had filed two appeals before the learned Subordinate Judge, Krishnagiri in A.S.Nos.1 and 2 of 1981. Both the appeals were dismissed on 25.3.1981. Having been defeated in all his attempts, the said Arokiyadas had instigated one Kuzhanthaisamy and others to cause disturbance to the possession and enjoyment of the appellant. 16. Therefore, the appellant along with his Aunt Loordhumary had filed a suit in O.S.No.228 of 1988 on the file of the District Munsif, Harur. In that suit, the said Kuzhanthaisamy and others had submitted to decree. Accordingly a decree was passed on 16.6.1988. Therefore, the suit properties are exclusively belonged to the appellant/first defendant, his sisters and the said Loordhumary. The respondent/plaintiff does not have any right or title to the suit property. The Village Panchayatdars have nothing to do with the suit property. Even the plaintiff does not have any right over the suit property under the guise of foster daughter of Sowrimuthu and Madhalaiammal. The respondent/plaintiff, after having kept quite for about 17 years, without initiating any action, she had filed the present suit vexatiously. 17. The learned Trial Judge viz., the learned District Munsif, Harur had decreed the suit in part as aforestated which was confirmed by the learned First Appellate Court viz., the learned Subordinate Judge, Dharmapuri. Now the appellant, being the first defendant in the suit, stands before this Court with this Second Appeal. 19. Mr.T.R.Rajaraman, while advancing his argument, has drawn the attention of this Court to paragraph No.4 as well as paragraph Nos.5 and 6 of the Trial Court judgment, wherein the learned Trial Judge has referred to the averments of the plaint made by the respondent/plaintiff in which she has stated that she had only performed the funeral rituals when her foster parents had passed away. The learned Trial Judge had also referred to that since the respondent/plaintiff was appointed as a nominee to receive the retirement benefits of the deceased Sowrimuthu, she had accordingly received, but the receipt of the retirement benefits of Sowrimuthu, as she being a nominee, will not create any exclusive right over the properties of the deceased Sowrimuthu and Madhalaiammal. 20. It is pertinent to note here that the appellant/first defendant had not specifically denied the fact that Loordhumary is the mother of the respondent/plaintiff. Mr.T.R.Rajaraman has also pointed out that the suit properties were protected by the appellant/first defendant by contesting the suit in O.S.Nos.1061 of 1972 and 1194 of 1972 which were filed before the District Munsif Court, Dharmapuri and thereafter he had also successfully faced the appellant in A.S.Nos.1 and 2 of 1982 which were filed by the said Arokiyadas before the learned Subordinate Judge, Krishnagiri. 21. He would further submit that the respondent/plaintiff had not taken care of the properties for the past 17 years as she had been living in Bangalore and during that period the properties were protected and safeguarded only by the appellant/first defendant and subsequently, the property was cultivated by the second defendant, who had also now passed away. 22. At present the appellant/first defendant alone has been in possession and enjoyment of the property and hence the suit was hopelessly barred by the period of limitation as the respondent/ plaintiff had made belated claim over the suit property. But, in fact, no such issue has been framed by the Trial Court and the plea with regard to limitation was not at all raised by the appellant/first defendant even in his written statement. No doubt, the question of law can be raised at any point of time even before the Appellate Court. However, in so far as this case is concerned, the right of the respondent/plaintiff cannot be either waived or discarded in toto. 23. The learned First Appellate Court Judge has found that the appeals preferred by Arokiyadas in A.S.Nos.1 and 2 of 1981 before the learned Subordinate Judge, Krishnagiri were dismissed for non-prosecution and therefore, the judgment passed in O.S.Nos.1061 and 1194 of 1972 which were ended in favour of the appellant/first defendant had become final. 24. The learned First Appellate Court Judge has also made reference to Exhibits B-1 to B-3. 24. The learned First Appellate Court Judge has also made reference to Exhibits B-1 to B-3. Ex.B-1 is the common judgment delivered in O.S.Nos.1061 and 1194 of 1972 by the learned District Munsif, Dharmapuri. It appears that O.S.No.1061 of 1972 seems to have been filed by one A.Arokiyasamy and eight others. Arokiyasamy is the father of the appellant/first defendant (died). In the said suit, the appellant/first defendant was also one of the plaintiffs. That suit was filed as against one Mariyadasan and 4 others. Another suit in O.S.No.1194 of 1972 appears to have been filed by A.Arokiyadas and Mariyadas as against A.Arokiyasamy and seven others, who are the plaintiffs in the suit in O.S.No.1061 of 1972. 25. In the common judgment, the learned District Munsif, Dharmapuri, has found that the plaintiffs in O.S.No.1194 of 1972 i.e., Arokiyadas and Mariyadas are not entitled to suit properties and that the second plaintiff in O.S.No.1194 of 1972 alone is entitled to an order of injunction with respect to half share in the suit Survey No.4/9 and the entire property in Survey No.4/3. 26. Similarly, he has found that the plaintiffs in O.S.No.1061 of 1972 i.e., A.Arokiyasamy (died), father of the appellant/first defendant and others which includes the appellant/first defendant are found together entitled to the remaining half share in the suit Survey No.4/9 and they are not entitled to any injunction. Accordingly, the suit was decreed saying that “O.S.No.1061 of 1972 is decreed, declaring that the plaintiffs are entitled only to an extent of 18, Heard Mr.T.R.Rajaraman, learned counsel appearing for the appellant/first defendant and Mr.V.Raghavachari, learned counsel appearing for the respondent/plaintiff. 2.25 acres in suit Survey No.4/9. In O.S.No.1194 of 1972 is decreed only in favour of Mariyadas, who is the second plaintiff therein with respect to injunction alone of the remaining extent of 2.25 acres in Survey No.4/9 and 64 cents in Survey No.4/3”. 27. Only on this basis, the learned Trial Judge has proceeded to decree the suit in favour of the respondent/plaintiff, granting declaratory decree in respect of half portion of the land measuirng 4.50 cents i.e., 2.25 cents in Survey No.4/9 and also declared that she is entitled to 0.64 cents comprised in Survey No.4/.3. This has been confirmed by the learned First Appellate Court Judge. This has been confirmed by the learned First Appellate Court Judge. Since both the Courts below have given concurrent findings, it is the settled proposition of law that does not require the interference of this Court. 28. Mr.T.R.Rajaraman, learned counsel, while advancing his argument, has placed reliance upon the following two decisions viz., (i) Shipra Sengupta vs. Mridul Sengupta and Others {2009 SAR (Civil) 875 SC} and (ii) Ram Chander Talwar and another vs. Devender Kumar Talwar and others {2010 (10) SCC 671}. 29. In the decision first cited supra, the Apex Court has found that the nomination does not confer any beneficial interest on the nominee and also held that nominee is entitled to receive the amount but, the same are to be distributed according to the Hindu Succession Act, 1956. 30. In the decision cited second supra, the same proposition has been laid down. It is also held that the nomination merely gives right of depositor to receive money lying in account. But it does not make nominee the owner of money lying in account. 31. On the other hand, Mr.V.Raghavachari, learned counsel appearing for the respondent/ plaintiff has also cited the following two decisions:-(i) Angammal and two others vs. Komara Gounder and two others { 2002 (1) CTC 472 } and (ii) Natarajan vs. R.Muthukrishnan {2001 (4) CTC 513}. 32. In the decision first cited supra with reference to Order VII, Rule 7 of the Code of Civil Procedure, the learned single Judge of this Court, has held that the Court can give plaintiff such general or other reliefs as it deems just to same extent as it had been asked for, provided that occasions no prejudice to other side beyond what can be compensated for in costs. The Court will not refuse to grant relief not specifically claimed if such relief is required by nature of case and is not inconsistent with the relief specifically claimed and raised by the pleadings. The learned Judge has also held that the Court can mould the reliefs according to proved facts provided such reliefs are not inconsistent with the pleadings and that the claim cannot be thrown out on merits due to technicality of pleadings and therefore, the Court can always grant lesser relief than what is claimed to which the plaintiff is entitled to. Similar view has been taken in the decision second cited supra. 33. Similar view has been taken in the decision second cited supra. 33. On coming to the instant case on hand, this Court is of the view that the claim of the respondent/ plaintiff is not inconsistent with her prayer as well as her pleadings. It is apparent that the Trial Court has moulded the relief in accordance with the pleadings as well as the prayer of the suit and granted lesser relief than what she had claimed. It has been affirmed and confirmed by the First Appellate Court and therefore, this Court does not want either to modify or disturb the concurrent findings of the Courts below. 34. Keeping in view of the above facts, the Second Appeal is dismissed, confirming the judgment and decree of the Courts below. There shall be no order as to costs.