given only by way of sale deeds. The trial Court also found that there was a sale deed executed by the parents of the 4th defendant in favour of the 4th defendant’s son and in respect of the another sister, it was executed in favour of the sister’s husband. Factoring all these documents entered into amongst the family members, the trial Court found that the plea of family arrangement in the family was true and thereby, the plaintiff’s sale deed would not become invalid. The trial Court also found that the plaintiff to be in possession based on Exhibits A1 to A6. The plaintiff has produced Ex.A4 patta in his name and also Ex.A3, patta in the joint names of the defendant, one China Thambi and the plaintiff. The plaintiff has also lodged a police complaint, in view of the interference by the defendants on 05.05.2009, thus, clearly establishing that there was a threat to his possession. The cause of action arose admittedly on the said attempts to interfere with the plaintiff’s peaceful possession and enjoyment. According to the plaintiff, there is no threat to his title and in such circumstances, the plaintiff need not be driven to the necessity of seeking declaration of his title which was never in cloud.
