JUDGMENT (Prayer: This Appeal Suit has been filed, under Section 96 and Order 41 Rule 1 of the Civil Procedure Code, against the judgment and decree dated 13.07.2012 made in O.S.No.133 of 2011 on the file of the I Additional District cum Sessions Court, Cuddalore.) 1. This Appeal Suit has been filed challenging the judgment and decree, dated 13.07.2012, made in O.S.No.133 of 2011 on the file of the I Additional District cum Sessions Court, Cuddalore. 2. The appellant is the plaintiff and the respondents are the defendants in the said suit in O.S.No.133 of 2011. For the sake of convenience, the parties hereinafter are referred to as they were arrayed in the suit. 3. The suit was filed seeking preliminary decree of partition and separate possession of Plaintiff's 1/3 share in the suit 'B' schedule property, to appoint an Advocate Commissioner to divide the suit 'B' schedule property by metes and bounds into 3 equal shares and to allot one such share to the Plaintiff and restrain the defendants, their men and agents by a decree of permanent injunction, from in any manner interfering with plaintiff's peaceful possession and enjoyment of the suit 'D' schedule property and for costs. 4. The case of the Plaintiff is that the Plaintiff and the 1st Defendant are brothers. The 2nd Defendant is their sister. The 3rd to 6th Defendants are the daughters of the 2nd Defendant. The 1st Defendant has married the 3rd Defendant. Plaintiff's father was Pavadai. His mother was Rajambal Ammal. They brought up a male, by name Selvaraj as their foster son. After they decided to bring up Selvaraj as the foster son, Plaintiff and 1st Defendant were born. Thereafter, Rajambal Ammal decided to give some property to him and also to Plaintiff and 1st Defendant. 5. The suit 'B' and 'C' schedule properties belonged to their mother. Hence, she executed a Settlement Deed dated 25.06.1968 in favour of the foster son, namely Selvaraj. On the same day, the mother gave remaining 31 feet East-West to Plaintiff and 1st Defendant jointly. They are living jointly in the same place not by division but by adjustment. In due course, Selvaraj became indebted. He could have disposed of his share, but as there was no demarcation or defined portion, third parties were not willing to purchase. A division would have meant expenditure which Selvaraj could not afford. They are living jointly in the same place not by division but by adjustment. In due course, Selvaraj became indebted. He could have disposed of his share, but as there was no demarcation or defined portion, third parties were not willing to purchase. A division would have meant expenditure which Selvaraj could not afford. The 2nd Defendant's husband came forwarded to provide financial assistance. 6. Thereafter, in the year 1984, Selvaraj borrowed money from 2nd Defendant's husband. However, as a security, the Settlement Deed dated 25.06.1968 was given to the 2nd Defendant's husband, namely Chinnaraj. However, it was taken as a sale deed not only to serve as a security, but also to screen away from creditors, as the exact amount due was not known. The debts were discharged. 7. The sale deed was meant not to be enforced as a security for the sum borrowed. Plaintiff knew about the same, since he was a witness to the transaction and has signed as a witness. The original registered deed was with Chinnaraj, but the possession was not at all taken. Neither the 2nd Defendant nor her husband took possession of the property so purchased. It was not capable of being taken possession of. He did not bother to take possession ,since it was not a sale deed in reality. Within two years, Selvaraj also discharged the loan amount due to Chinnaraj. The original sale deed was also returned to Selvaraj. Admittedly, there is only on entrance in the Western portion and the middle portion. Selvaraj continued to be in possession till he discharged all loans including the money due to Chinnaraj. Thereafter, in the year 1988, Selvaraj left Panruti along with his family. 8. Admittedly, the Plaintiff provided funds to Selvaraj for discharging the loan due to Chinnaraj. As the original sale deed was with the 2nd Defendant's husband, Plaintiff lent money to Selvaraj, orally. After discharging loan amount due, Selvaraj decided to quit Panruti and he orally sold out the area given to him to the Plaintiff on 15.08.1988. It is described as 'D' schedule property. The Plaintiff paid the difference of price also. Selvaraj's wife and children had moved out even earlier. Plaintiff has collected funds to execute the sale deed and to register. Thereafter, it was agreed that the sale deed would be executed. It is described as 'D' schedule property. The Plaintiff paid the difference of price also. Selvaraj's wife and children had moved out even earlier. Plaintiff has collected funds to execute the sale deed and to register. Thereafter, it was agreed that the sale deed would be executed. Pursuant to the purchase, even on 15.08.1988, the Plaintiff took possession of Selvaraj's portion and from 15.08.1988, Plaintiff is in possession and enjoyment of 15 + 15 ½ feet = 30 ½ feet. Selvaraj had to hand over the original sale deed in favour of Chinnaraj. He handed over the original Settlement Deed dated 25.06.1968. 9. Thereafter, Selvaraj did not handover the original sale deed in favour of Chinnaraj. He delayed the same. Plaintiff was urging Selvaraj, but the transaction having been completed, both were not keen in having a document as there was no dispute and the Plaintiff is in possession of the same. Nevertheless, neither Chinnaraj nor Selvaraj made any claim, nor did they disturb the Plaintiff's possession. Plaintiff by being in open, hostile and uninterrupted possession for well over the statutory period, has prescribed title by adverse possession. Selvaraj is no more. His legal heirs also have not made any claim. 10. The Plaintiff has also reconstructed the house in such a manner that it covers the portion given to him and also to Selvaraj. There was no objection. Rather, there was acquiescence. Plaintiff is also paying the taxes and charges for both portions of the subject property. The 'B' schedule property is agricultural land. Being the property of the mother, Plaintiff and 1st and 2nd Defendants each have 1/3 share therein. Plaintiff is ready and willing to divide the same amicably. On 01.10.2011, he made a demand. For some reason, the 2nd Defendant is refusing to co-operate. She is supported by 1st Defendant, who is not only her brother, but is also her son-in-law. Both of them want to sell the 'B' schedule property without reference to the Plaintiff. 11. Thereafter, having came to know about the same, the Plaintiff questioned them. But they had not given reply properly. They had made secret arrangements to dispose of 'B' schedule property. They also want to take advantage of the fact that the Plaintiff has purchased 15 feet from Selvaraj without a document of title. Such a plea cannot be sustained. Defendants joined together in giving trouble to Plaintiff. But they had not given reply properly. They had made secret arrangements to dispose of 'B' schedule property. They also want to take advantage of the fact that the Plaintiff has purchased 15 feet from Selvaraj without a document of title. Such a plea cannot be sustained. Defendants joined together in giving trouble to Plaintiff. Therefore, the suit has been filed, seeking reliefs, as stated above. 12. The case of the Defendants is that the above said suit is not maintainable “in limine litis”. The plaintiff is not the owner of the suit property and he is not a shareholder in 'B' schedule property. Because the 'B' schedule property was registered by the 2nd Defendant on 19.10.1954 with all rights to sell it to any parties by the 2nd Defendant, in her Settlement Deed i.e. “ TAMIL” by the 2nd Defendant. Therefore, the 2nd Defendant is the absolute owner of the entire 'B' schedule property. The Plaintiff did not have any right in respect of 'B' schedule property because the 'B' schedule property had already reached finality. If the Plaintiff claims partition after the 2nd Defendant had attained majority in 1954 from 2 years, the Plaintiff cannot claim partition in 2011. Because the 'B' schedule property is not joint family property, it entirely belongs to the 2nd Defendant. 13. Further, the 'D' schedule property was sold by the owner i.e. Selvaraj on 01.08.1984 to the 2nd Defendant's husband, namely Senraj, by virtue of Sale Deed bearing Registration No.847/1984, stating that, 14. Therefore, the 2nd Defendant's husband is the absolute owner of the 'D' schedule property. Further, the Plaintiff did not file any documentary evidence for his joint family properties. In this regard, the Plaintiff made only oral statement in his plaint. Therefore, the present Appeal Suit is liable to be dismissed. 15. On the pleadings of the parties, the following issues were framed by the Trial Court:- (i) Whether the suit is maintainable? (ii) Whether the suit properties are joint family properties? (iii) Whether the plaintiff is entitled for 1/3 share in the 'B' schedule property? (iv) Whether the plaintiff is entitled for permanent injunction as prayed for? (v) To what other reliefs the plaintiff is entitled to? 16. Before the Trial Court, on the side of the Plaintiff, PW.1 to PW.3 were examined and Ex.A1 to Ex.A3 were marked. (iii) Whether the plaintiff is entitled for 1/3 share in the 'B' schedule property? (iv) Whether the plaintiff is entitled for permanent injunction as prayed for? (v) To what other reliefs the plaintiff is entitled to? 16. Before the Trial Court, on the side of the Plaintiff, PW.1 to PW.3 were examined and Ex.A1 to Ex.A3 were marked. On the side of the Defendants, DW.1 to DW.5 were examined and Ex.B1 and Ex.B2 were marked. After considering the facts and circumstances of the case, by judgment dated 13.07.2012, the learned I Additional District-cum-Sessions Judge, Cuddalore has dismissed the suit. Aggrieved by the same, this Appeal Suit has been filed by the Plaintiff. 17. This Court heard the submissions of the learned counsel on either side and perused the materials available on record. 18. The Appellant's counsel has submitted that the appellant's mother executed a Settlement Deed dated 25.06.1968 in favour of her foster son, namely Selvaraj. It was mentioned as 'D' schedule property in the plaint. Selvaraj executed a sale deed in favour of one Chinnaraj, but that document was executed as a security purpose only. Selvaraj repaid the loan amount and obtained the sale deed. In the year 1988, the appellant purchased the property orally from Selvaraj. The appellant is only in possession of the property. The appellant has not claimed any title over the property. 19. He further submitted that the lower Court failed to see all the aspects and decided the case on probabilities. The lower Court has not properly framed the issues. Hence, he prays that the matter may be remanded to the lower Court for fresh disposal. 20. Respondents' counsel has submitted that the appellant has not submitted any records to prove his case. After considering the oral and documentary evidence, the lower Court has properly concluded the case and dismissed the suit. Thereafter, he prays that this Appeal Suit is liable to be dismissed. 21. In this case, PW.1 deposed that on 25.06.1968, his mother executed a Settlement Deed in favour of her foster son namely Selvaraj. In the year 1984, Selvaraj obtained loan from Chinnaraj. Thereafter, Selvaraj executed a sale deed in favour of Chinnaraj, but it is not a sale deed, and it was executed only as security. He discharged the said loan within two years. After discharging the same, he got back the sale deed. In the year 1984, Selvaraj obtained loan from Chinnaraj. Thereafter, Selvaraj executed a sale deed in favour of Chinnaraj, but it is not a sale deed, and it was executed only as security. He discharged the said loan within two years. After discharging the same, he got back the sale deed. In the year 1988, Selvaraj decided to go to Panruti and orally sold the property to the appellant on 13.08.1988 to discharge his loans to various persons. It was mentioned as 'D' schedule property. From that day onwards, he is enjoying the property without any interruption over the statutory period and has prescribed title by adverse possession. Further, he deposed that he has paid the necessary tax, water tax and other charges to the authorities. 22. In this case, DW.1 deposed that his mother executed a Settlement Deed dated 25.06.1968 in favour of Selvaraj. In the year 1984, Selvaraj sold the property to Chinnaraj, for valid consideration. Chinnaraj also obtained patta in his name. In cross, he denied that it was executed only for security purpose. 23. In cross, PW.1 depose that he has not filed any document before the Court to prove the oral sale. Further, he stated that for discharging the loan amount, he handed over the property to him, but he has not filed any document to prove the same. Further, he has stated that he has not filed any document to prove as to whether he was in possession or paid the water tax and electricity bill. 24. The above evidence clearly shows that the appellant has not filed any document to prove his contentions. Further, he has not filed any document regarding payment of water tax and electricity bill. After considering all the records, the Trial Court has come to proper conclusion and dismissed the suit. Therefore, nothing warrants interference by this Court in this case. 25. Accordingly, the Appeal Suit is dismissed confirming the judgment and decree of the Trial Court. No costs.