H ABDUL ALEEM Vs. H REHIMA BI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE appellants are the defendants who have preferred this appeal challenging the judgment and decree dated 20. 12. 1991 in O. S. No. 520 of 1989 on the file of the Principal Subordinate Judge, Salem.

(2.) THE first plaintiff (since deceased) and the respondents 1 to 7 herein/plaintiffs 2 to 8 filed the suit for declaration of title and recovery of possession of the suit property from the appellants and also for damages at the rate of Rs. 250/- per month for illegal occupation from 1. 7. 1988. THE appellants, who are none else than the other sons of the first plaintiff, resisted the suit on various grounds. THE learned Subordinate Judge having analysed the evidence of both sides and upon hearing the submissions made on behalf of them decreed the suit as prayed for with costs. Hence, the appellants have filed this appeal challenging the legality of the judgment and decree passed by the trial court.

(3.) THE respondents as plaintiffs in the suit examined the 8th plaintiff as P. W. 1 and two other witnesses as P. Ws. 2 and 3 and produced the documents under Exs. A-1 to A-30. THE appellants as defendants examined the second appellant as D. W. 1 and another witness as D. W. 2 and also produced the documents under Exs. B-1 to B-31 in support of their respective contentions in the pleadings. Learned Principal Subordinate Judge, Salem having analysed the evidence both oral and documentary adduced on either side and upon hearing the arguments of both sides held on issue Nos. 1 and 2 that the gift deeds dated 16. 6. 1986 and 17. 6. 1986 are true, valid and binding on the defendants and that the defendants have not acquired title to the suit property by prescription on account of their adverse possession. Further he held on issue Nos. 3 and 4 that since the plaintiffs have proved their title to the suit property, they are entitled to the reliefs of declaration and recovery of possession as prayed for. Similarly, learned Subordinate Judge held that the plaintiffs are also entitled to recover damages for use and occupation of the property by the defendants as prayed for. THErefore he held on issue No. 4 that the plaintiffs are entitled to a decree as prayed for with costs.