(1.) (The case has been heard through Video Conference)
(2.) The brief facts necessary for deciding these Second Appeals are as below:
(3.) According to Krishnaveni Ammal, Balarama Naidu and the defendant Kuppusamy Naidu are brothers. She is the wife of Balarama Naidu. The suit schedule property is the family property inherited by her father-in-law Ayyil Naidu. The division of status between brothers took place even before the plaintiff's marriage with Balarama Naidu. The suit schedule property came to the share of Balarama Naidu and he was in possession and enjoyment. The marriage took place on 07.07.1977. Even before the marriage, Balarama Naidu promised her to gift the suit property as pre-nuptial gift. Hence, after the marriage, Balarama Naidu executed a settlement deed in respect of the suit schedule property in favour of his wife Krishnaveni Ammal on 27.12.1977. From then she became the absolute owner of the property and in possession. Patta has been transferred in her name. The settlement and mutation of revenue records was done with the knowledge and consent of the defendant Kuppusamy Naidu. To deepen the well in S.No.19/5, in which, the plaintiff Krishnaveni Ammal and the defendant Kuppusamy Naidu have 2/3rd share jointly, they both raised loan by mortgaging jointly the 2nd item of the suit schedule property in favour of one Mari Kounder on 27.09.1983 for Rs.2,500/-. Thus the possession and title of the plaintiff accepted by the defendant by conduct. While so, the defendant Kuppusamy Naidu attempt to trespass into item Nos.1 and 3 of the suit schedule property. Taking advantage of the fact that Balarama Naidu the plaintiff's husband not leading a proper life and also developed intimacy with one Malar of Vadakurumbur village and deserted the plaintiff Krishnaveni Ammal and her daughter, the defendant Kuppusamy Naidu denying the status of the plaintiff as legally wedded wife of Balarama Naidu, trespassed the suit property and hence the suit for declaration and recovery of possession.