(1.) THE second appeal is filed by the defendants against the judgment and decree dated 5.8.1997 in A.S. No. 23 of 1996 on the file of the Subordinate Court, Pudukottai, reversing the judgment and decree dated 29.11.1995 in O.S. No. 155 of 1995 on the file of the District Munsif Court, Keeranur.
(2.) THE averments in the plaint are as follows: THE plaintiffs/respondents are the brothers and the suit properties are ancestral properties which are in possession and enjoyment of the plaintiffs/respondents. One Royappa Udyar, S/o Anthony Muthu Udyar filed a suit in S.C. No. 902 of 1968 on the file of District Munsif Court, Pudukottai for recovery of a sum of Rs.214/ - and obtained ex -parte decree. He also filed an Execution petition and the suit properties were sold through Court auction that has been confirmed on 3.1.1970. In pursuance of the Court auction sale, he taken steps for delivery of properties on 27.1.1970. It is only a paper delivery. He has not taken actual delivery of the suit properties. Now only, the plaintiffs/respondents came to know about the sale of the suit properties through Court auction in S.C. No. 902 of 1968 and the decree in respect of the delivery of possession. Even after confirmation of sale on 3.1.1970, the plaintiffs/respondents are in possession and enjoyment of the suit properties till today for more than 22 years continuously. THErefore, the plaintiffs/respondents claim prescriptive title by adverse possession. Now, the appellants/defendants attempted to interfere with the possession and enjoyment of the suit properties by the plaintiffs/respondents by stating that they are the absolute owners of the suit properties. Hence, the plaintiffs/ respondents constrained to file the suit for declaration that the plaintiffs/respondents are having prescriptive title by adverse possession and also for injunction and prayed for decree.
(3.) AT the time of admission of the Second Appeal, the following substantial questions of law were framed for consideration: