YADHAVAN Vs. DAYANUDIN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Having failed in both the Courts below, the defendants 'have preferred this second appeal. The suit by the respondents plaintiffs is for an injunction against possession interference in respect of the vacant portion of the suit property, of an extent of 600 sq.ft out of the total extent of 1, 767 sq.ft. of the entire suit property. The plaintiffs claimed title and possession under Ex.A-1 sale deed dated 18.10.1989 from the. 3rd defendant.

(2.) The main contention of learned counsel for the appellants, is that the Courts below have not considered the title secured by the defendants to the abovesaid 600 sq.ft. by adverse possession as found in an earlier proceeding, whose judgment dated 5.12.1984 is marked as Ex.B-4.

(3.) But, first of all it must be noted that the plaintiffs were not parties to the said earlier proceeding. That apart, the lower appellate court specifically finds that in Ex.B-4 the abovesaid 600 sq.ft. vacant site has not been referred to and the said fact is also admitted by D.W.1, the 1st defendant. The lower appellate court also finds that in Ex.B-4, there is nothing to show that the above said 600 sq.ft. vacant site belongs to the appellants. I also find from the deposition of D.W.1 that he has admitted as follows: That apart, it is also admitted by learned counsel for the appellants that Ex.B-4 was not put at all to P.W.1, the 1st plaintiff, through whom it was marked. If really Ex.B-4 related to the above suit disputed property of 600 sq.ft., the appellants should have put Ex.B-4 to P.W.1, while cross-examining him. Further to show the actual description and extent of the property involved in Ex.B-4, the appellants have neither filed the plaint copy nor the decree copy in the abovesaid Ex.B-4 proceeding. No doubt it appears from Ex.B-4 judgment that with reference to the property involved in the said proceeding the 5th defendant therein, who is the 1st defendant herein, along with certain other defendants have prescribed title by adverse possession. But from the judgments of the courts below, it is clear that the appellants have not proved that Ex.B-4 related to the above referred to 600 sq.ft. vacant site involved in the present suit. So there is absolutely no scope for the appellants claiming adverse possession to the above said 600 sq.ft. vacant site. (Matter in other language) In view of the abovesaid factual findings, there is absolutely no error of law in the judgments of the courts below.