SOLAI AMMAL Vs. CHELLAMMAL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) AGAINST the decree in O. S. No: 8013 of 1987, passed by the VIth Assistant City Civil Judge, Chennai, which was against the plaintiffs in that suit, the plaintiffs are before this Court in A. S. No: 802 of 1991. The defendants in the above referred to suit filed O. S. No: 6876 of 1988 on the file of the VIth Assistant City Civil Court, Chennai, for recovery of possession. In that suit, the plaintiffs in the earlier suit along with one Jayaraman were the defendants. In that suit, a decree as prayed for was passed. It must be noticed here that both the suits were disposed of by a common judgment. Against the decree for possession, an appeal was filed before the lower appellate Court and on a transfer application filed by the judgment debtor in the suit for possession, the appeal filed before the lower appellate Court was transferred to the file of this Court and stands re-numbered as Transfer Appeal No: 819 of 1992. Since both the suits were tried together; common evidence was let in and were disposed of by a common judgment, we are also inclined to dispose of both the appeals by our common judgment.

(2.) WE will summarize hereunder the pleadings in O. S. No: 8013 of 1987: the plaintiffs originally filed a suit for bare injunction. On the defence taken by the defendants asserting title in themselves, plaint was amended to include the declaratory relief of title based on adverse possession. The allegations in the plaint as amended and referred to above are as follows :

(3.) AN additional written statement was filed by the defendants attacking the case of the plaintiffs on adverse possession. They also defended that a person claiming adverse possession must have asserted hostile title against the real owner and that is absent in this case. It is their further defence in the additional written statement that such an adverse possession should be continuous, open and hostile over the period of limitation to the knowledge of the true owner and that is also wanting in this case. According to them, mere possession alone over the property, however long it may be, without asserting any title in themselves and hostile to the knowledge of the true owners, cannot give a cause of action to claim title based on such possession. There is no allegation in the plaint as to on what basis and in what mode the plaintiffs perfected title by adverse possession.