JUDGMENT : In this second appeal, challenge is made to the Judgment and Decree, dated 14.09.2018, passed in A.S.No.65 of 2017, on the file of the Subordinate Court, Thoothukudi, confirming the Judgment and Decree, dated 02.06.2017, passed in O.S.No.416 of 2011, on the file of the Principal District Munsif Court, Thoothukudi. 2. For the sake of convenience, the parties are referred to as per the rankings in the Trial Court. 3. The case of the plaintiff, in brief, is that the suit property belonged to A.Ponnirathal, the mother of the plaintiff and the defendants, and the plaintiff and the defendants are having four sisters, who have got married prior to 1989 and living separately and their father Arumugam died in the year 2005 and during his lifetime, a family partition was effected orally and as per the said oral partition, the plaintiff and the defendants had been allotted separate shares in the family properties and accordingly, enjoying the same by paying taxes etc., for more than fifteen years and inasmuch the suit property is the self-acquired property of the mother of the plaintiff and the defendants, namely, Ponnirathal, the same had been allotted to her in the abovesaid oral partition and the said Ponnirathal had purchased the suit property from one T.Mariammal, wife of Thangavelu, by way of a registered sale deed, dated 13.10.1977, out of her own funds derived from the sale of cattle and her jewels and since then, it is she who had been in possession and enjoyment of the suit property and the plaintiff had purchased the suit property from the said Ponnirathal, by way of a registered sale deed, dated 01.02.2011, for a valid consideration and enjoying the same. While so, the defendants, without any authority, unlawfully trespassed into the suit property by force and dispossessed the plaintiff's mother from the suit property and occupied the same unlawfully by laying a false claim of title to the suit property and in this connection, the plaintiff had also laid a police complaint against the defendants and despite the same, inasmuch as defendants had not come forward to handover the possession of the suit property to the plaintiff, according to the plaintiff, he has been necessitated to lay the suit for the appropriate reliefs. 4. 4. The case of the defendants, in brief, is that the suit laid by the plaintiff is not maintainable either in law or on facts and it is false to state that during the lifetime of the father of the parties, the family properties had been orally divided and separate properties had been allotted to the plaintiff and the defendants and thereby, they had been enjoying their allotted shares separately, for the past fifteen years, by paying taxes etc., and on the other hand, no oral partition had been effected, as pleaded in the plaint and it is also false to state that the suit property had been acquired by Ponnirathal, mother of the plaintiff and the defendants, out of her own funds and in the abovesaid oral partition, the suit property had been allotted to the share of Ponnirathal and on the other hand, the suit property had been purchased by the plaintiff's father, plaintiff, defendants and their sisters, out of the joint exertion and also on the basis of the family nucleus, in the name of their mother Ponnirathal and therefore, all the members of the family are entitled to get equal share in the suit property and in this connection, the defendants had laid a suit for partition against the plaintiff and their mother Ponnirathal, in O.S.No.93 of 2011, for effecting partition in respect of the suit property as well as the other properties and in fact, the suit property had been entrusted to the first defendant by the father during his lifetime and since then, it is only the first defendant who has been enjoying the suit property by residing therein and paying taxes, electricity charges etc., and therefore, the plaintiff is not entitled to the reliefs prayed for and the suit is liable to be dismissed. 5. In support of the plaintiff's case, P.Ws.1 and 2 were examined and Exs.A1 to A4 were marked and on the side of the defendants, D.Ws.1 and 2 were examined and Ex.B1 was marked. 6. On a consideration of the oral and documentary evidence adduced by the respective parties and the submissions made, the Trial Court was pleased to decree the suit as prayed for. Aggrieved over the same, the defendants preferred the first appeal. 6. On a consideration of the oral and documentary evidence adduced by the respective parties and the submissions made, the Trial Court was pleased to decree the suit as prayed for. Aggrieved over the same, the defendants preferred the first appeal. In the first appeal, on the side of the defendants, additional documents had come to be marked as Exs.B2 to B4 and furthermore, Exs.C1 and C2 were also marked. The First Appellate Court, on a consideration of the materials placed on record both oral and documentary and the submissions made, was pleased to confirm the Judgment and Decree of the Trial Court and thereby, dismissed the first appeal preferred by the defendants. Impugning the same, the present second appeal has been laid. 7. The plaintiff and the defendants are brothers. According to the plaintiff, the suit property belonged to Ponnirathal, the mother of the plaintiff and the defendants, by way of a purchase of the same under a registered sale deed, dated 13.10.1977, the certified copy of which document has come to be marked as Ex.A4. As regards the abovesaid case of the plaintiff, the defendants have putforth the defence that the suit property is not the self-acquired property of Ponnirathal and on the other hand, according to them, the suit property had been purchased by the father Arumugam, plaintiff, defendants and their sisters out of the joint exertion and also with the aid of the family nucleus, in the name of Ponnirathal and therefore, they disputed the claim of the plaintiff that the suit property is the self-acquired property of Ponnirathal. 8. As abovestated, to establish that the suit property had been purchased by Ponnirathal, out of her own funds, the plaintiff has marked the certified copy of the sale deed as Ex.A4. Furthermore, from the evidence of D.W.2, the vendor Mariammal, it is seen that as determined by the First Appellate Court, the suit property had been acquired by Ponnirathal out of the funds given to her by her husband. Furthermore, from the evidence of D.W.2, the vendor Mariammal, it is seen that as determined by the First Appellate Court, the suit property had been acquired by Ponnirathal out of the funds given to her by her husband. Therefore, when there is no material placed on the part of the defendants that the joint family, as such, owned properties and the said properties yielded income and out of the said income as well as the joint exertion of the family members, as putforth in the written statement, the suit property had been acquired in the name of Ponnirathal, with reference to the abovesaid case of the defendants, other than the second defendant examined as D.W.1, the defendants had not chosen to examine the other family members, particularly, the sisters, who according to the defendants, are also entitled to get equal shares in the suit property, on the footing that they had also put their exertion for the acquisition of the suit property in the name of Ponnirathal, their version cannot be countenanced. Furthermore, during the course of evidence, the second defendant, examined as D.W.1, would also putforth the defence that the plaintiff had acquired the suit property from the mother by defrauding and cheating her and therefore, contended that the plaintiff would not be entitled to putforth any valid claim of title to the suit property on the alleged sale said to have been executed in his favour by the mother Ponnirathal. However, as rightly determined the Courts below, if according to the defendants, as putforth during the course of evidence, the plaintiff had duped and cheated the mother and obtained the sale deed in respect of the suit property, the defendants having knowledge of the same, they or their sisters, as the case may be, would have initiated necessary legal action against the plaintiff with reference to the same. Furthermore, the mother has also not evinced any interest to initiate any legal action against the plaintiff as regards the abovesaid case projected by the defendants during the course of evidence. Furthermore, the mother has also not evinced any interest to initiate any legal action against the plaintiff as regards the abovesaid case projected by the defendants during the course of evidence. Therefore, it is found that the defendants, though would putforth the case that the suit property had been acquired by the family members, out of the joint exertion and with the aid of the joint nucleus, however with reference to the same, there is no material projected on the part of the defendants pointing to the same and no material placed by the defendants to evidence that since the date of the sale deed - Ex.A4, the suit property had been in the possession and enjoyment of the family members as putforth by them. 9. Now, according to the plaintiff, he had purchased the suit property from his mother, by way of a sale deed, dated 01.02.2011, which document has come to be marked as Ex.A1. Therefore, when it is found that the plaintiff had acquired the suit property from the lawful owner, namely, the mother, by way of Ex.A1 – sale deed and when there is no material placed on the part of the defendants that the consideration for the purchase of the suit property flowed out of the ancestral nucleus or on account of their joint exertion, as putforth by them and on the other hand, when it is noted that the suit property had been acquired only in the name of the mother and as could be analyzed from the evidence of D.W.2 that the suit property had been acquired by Ponnirathal only on her parting with the sale consideration, it is found that only Ponnirathal, the mother of the plaintiff and the defendants had title to the suit property as putforth by the plaintiff. 10. During the course of the first appeal, it is found that the defendants had projected a sale deed, dated 27.12.2001, said to have been acquired from Ponnirathal in respect of the suit property. 10. During the course of the first appeal, it is found that the defendants had projected a sale deed, dated 27.12.2001, said to have been acquired from Ponnirathal in respect of the suit property. However, as rightly determined by the First Appellate Court, considering the boundary recitals found in Ex.A4 – sale deed as well as the description of the property as put out in Ex.B2, it is noted that Ponnirathal had alienated her distinct properties, one in favour of the plaintiff and the another in favour of the second defendant, by way of Exs.A1 and B2 respectively and when it is noted that the properties comprised in Exs.A1 and B2 are not one and the same and on the other hand, when it is further noted that the second defendant had purchased the property lying to the east of the suit property, accordingly, it is found that the defendants cannot be allowed to putforth any claim of title to the suit property based on Ex.B2. Furthermore, it is not the case of the defendants that the second defendant had purchased the suit property from Ponnirathal and therefore, the abovesaid defence projected by them during the course of the first appeal does not merit acceptance. As rightly determined by the First Appellate Court, the revenue documents projected by the defendants, marked as Exs.B3 and B4 as well as Exs.C1 and C2, which cannot be construed as documents of title and when the defendants failed to establish the character of the suit property as the joint family property and as such, the family members are entitled to get equal shares in the suit property, as putforth in the written statement, on the other hand, when it is seen that based on Ex.A4, it is only Ponnirathal, who had title to the suit property independently, the revenue documents projected by the defendants would not serve their case for claiming title to the suit property in any manner. 11. 11. Furthermore, as rightly determined by the First Appellate Court, when it is noted that the suit property had been acquired only in the name of Ponnirathal and the defendants would only plead that though it had been acquired in the name of Ponnirathal, it had been derived out of the joint family exertion and with the aid of the family nucleus and thereby, by way of the above defence, it is found that the defendants are only pleading benami transaction in respect of the suit property acquired by Ponnirathal by way of Ex.A4. However, when the Benami Transaction Prohibition Act provides for raising a presumption in respect of the property standing in the name of the wife or the unmarried daughter that the same had been purchased for the benefit of the wife or the unmarried daughter and the rigours of the Act would not apply to such transaction, unless the contrary is proved and as abovenoted, when the defendants have failed to establish their defence in any manner, it is found that the suit property is only the self-acquired property of their mother Ponnirathal. Furthermore, the First Appellate Court is also justified in invoking Section 14(1) of the Hindu Succession Act, 1956 for upholding the independent title of Ponnirathal by way of Ex.A4 – sale deed. 12. The defendants' counsel, during the course of arguments, submitted that a partition suit had been laid by the defendants in respect of the suit property and other properties in O.S.No.93 of 2011 and therefore, the Courts below had erred in declaring the title of the suit property in favour of the plaintiff. However, he has also fairly admitted that the partition suit laid by defendants had been dismissed in respect of the suit property and according to him, the first appeal preferred by them is pending. However, he has also fairly admitted that the partition suit laid by defendants had been dismissed in respect of the suit property and according to him, the first appeal preferred by them is pending. Be that as it may, when the defendants had failed to establish their claim of ownership to the suit property and on the other hand, when the materials placed on record clearly point out that the suit property only belonged to Ponnirathal by way of Ex.A4 – sale deed and by way of Ex.A1 sale transaction, the plaintiff had acquired the suit property for a valid consideration and as could be assessed and determined from the evidence of the plaintiff as well as the attestor of Ex.A1 cumulatively, in all, it is seen that it is only the plaintiff, who has title to the suit property and the defendants have not right whatsoever in the suit property, on the other hand, when it is noted that the defendants are in the possession of the suit property without any authority and accordingly, the Courts below are fully justified in granting the reliefs of declaration and possession as prayed for by the plaintiff. 13. The counsel for the appellants, in support of his contentions placed reliance upon the decision in Narendra Prasad Singh vs. Ram Ashish Singh, reported in AIR 2018 Patna 205. The principles of law outlined in the abovecited decision are taken into consideration and followed as applicable to the case at hand. 14. In the light of the abovesaid reasons, no valid reason has been projected to interfere with the concurrent findings of the Judgment and Decree of the Courts below. Accordingly, holding that no substantial question of law is found to be involved in this second appeal, resultantly, the second appeal is dismissed. No costs. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petition is closed.