G.MURUGAN Vs. MOOKKAMMAI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The second defendant is the appellant before this Court. The parties are referred to in the same array as in the suit. The suit in O.S.No.249 of 2002 has been filed by the plaintiffs, who are the respondents 1 to 8 herein, for declaration that the suit property and the house constructed thereon belongs to them and consequently, for injunction, restraining the defendants and their men and agents in any manner from interfering with their peaceful possession and enjoyment of the suit property. Plaintiffs' case:

(2.) Mr.P.Thiyagarajan, learned counsel appearing for the appellant would contend that the plaintiffs have come forward with the suit for declaration on the premise that they have prescribed the title to the suit property by way of adverse possession. He would argue that the plaintiffs have miserably failed to prove as to when the title and possession had turned adverse. According to him, reading of the plaint no where indicates the point from which the plaintiffs would contend that their possession had become adverse.

(3.) In the absence of said plea, the learned counsel would contend that the Courts below have erred in granting the relief of declaration. It is the further contention that the husband of the first plaintiff had been put in permissive possession of the suit property and therefore, by no stretch of imagination, the possession had turned adverse.