( 1 ) ON 23-2-1991, the respondent Kamalamma filed an application under Order XXII, Rule 9 of CPC requesting the trial Court to set aside the Order of abatement passed in O. S. No. 801 of 1981, contending that she came in possession of the suit property by usufructory mortgage deed dated 26-2-1973. The said application was opposed by the learned counsel for the respondents contending that the respondent has perfected his title over the property by way of adverse possession. It was also objected by the petitioners herein contending that (1) the applicant was not entitled to seek for setting aside the abatement; (2) the application filed by the applicant seeking setting aside abatement has not made out sufficient cause; and (3) the application filed under Order XXII, rule 9 as not maintainable. According to the petitioners herein/objectors, the setting aside of abatement can be sought only by legal representatives of the deceased and not by person/s like the applicant/respondent who is claiming under a registered mortgage deed.

( 2 ) THE trial Court after taking into consideration the rival contentions of both sides,came to the conclusion that the cause shown by the