The main legal point established in the judgment is the requirement for specific pleadings and proof of adverse possession, emphasizing that adverse possession must be based on facts, pleaded, and proved.

Plaintiffs in O.S. 167 of 1974 are the defendants in O.S. 191 of 1974 while the plaintiff in O.S. 191 of 1974 is the defendant in O.S. 167 of 1974. As the issues arising for consideration in the suits were common, they were disposed of by the trial court by a common judgement. The appeals therefrom were also disposed of by a common judgement.

2. The Second Appeals are at the instance of the plaintiffs in O.S. 167 of 1974.

3. The dispute relates to the compound wall situated on the southern boundary of the appellants' property which admittedly is the northern boundary of the respondent's property. The compound wall is situated on the land comprised in survey No. 976/2.

4. The case of the respondent as disclosed from his pleadings is that the property shown in the schedule attached to the plaint in O.S. 191 of 1974 belongs to him and that the appellants and their men are attempting to trespass upon the property and therefore they may be restrained by an injuction from entering into the property and demolishing the compound wall situated on the northern side of the property and also from interfering with his rights to carry out construction works on the said compound wall. The statements in the plaint would make it clear that this compound wall is one standing on the property described in the schedule attached to the plaint. This is what is stated in the plaint :

(Matter in vernacular omitted - Ed.)

It is thus clear that the property on which the compound wall stands, according to the respondent, is the property comprised in survey Nos. 976/3 and 977/3.

5. The case pleaded by the appellants is this. The compound wall in dispute is constructed by the father of the deceased first plaintiff and stands on the land comprised in survey No. 976/2 belonging to them. This case is consistent with the details given in the schedule attached to the plaint. The derivation of the plaintiffs' title to the property is given in para 3 of the plaint in O.S. 167 of 1974. In para 5 it has been stated that the father of the first plaintiff constructed the compound wall on the southern side to avert further encroachment into their property by the predecessor-in-interest of the respondent. The appellants accordingly have prayed for a perpetual injunction restraining the respondent herein from interfering with their right to demolish the damaged compound wall and reconstruct the same.

6. From the pleadings of the respondent (the plaintiff in O.S. 191 of 1974) it is clear that the definite case put forward by him is that the compound wall is situated on the land comprised in survey Nos. 976/3 and 977/3. He has no case that the disputed compound wall was constructed by his predecessor-in-interest on the land encroached upon by him, comprised in survey No. 976/2, admittedly belonging to the appellants. Here it is worth remembering that the defence set up by the respondent in O.S. 167 of 1974 is not different from the case he has set up in the suit, O.S. 191 of 1974. The respondent has no case either in the pleadings in O.S. 191 of 1974 or in the written statement, he has filed in O.S. 167 of 1974 that he or his predecessor-in-interest had constructed a compound wall on the encroached land. On the other hand, as is seen from the plaint in O.S. 191 of 1974, the compound wall, the respondent's predecessor-in-interest is alleged to have constructed, is the one situated on the land comprised in survey Nos. 977/3 and 976/3. In short, the respondent has not set up any case either in the plaint in O.S. 191 of 1974 or in the written statement he has filed in O.S. 167 of 1974 that after trespassing upon the property comprised in survey No. 976/2, admittedly belonging to the appellants, he or his predecessor-in-interest has constructed any compound wall. He does not also have a case that he has perfected his title to the encroached property by adverse possession and limitation.

7. The main issue thus arising for consideration, is the following one, settled in O.S