JUDGMENT.- The first defendant in O.S. No. 67 of 1970 on the file of the Court of she District Munsif of Ramanathapuram is the appellant herein. The plaintiffs came to Court for a declaration of their title to the suit property and for a permanent injunction restraining the first defendant, who is the grandson of the second defendant, and also the second defendant, from interfering with the plaintiffs’ possession of the suit property, or, in the alternative, for recovery of possession. Both the Courts found that the plaintiffs respondents were entitled to the suit property. The trial Court was, however, of view that, notwithstanding such vesting of title in the plaintiffs they had lost it, because the defendants were adversely in possession of the suit property for the prescribed time as against the true owners and that therefore the plaintiffs were net entitled to either possession or declaration as prayed for. On appeal, however, the appellate Court noticed that there was no plea as to adverse possession as required in law and therefore held that, in the absence of such a pleading, the appellant-defendant could not succeed on a bare story of entitlement on the basis of adverse po

Click Here to Read the rest of this document