It is wrong to say that plea of title and adverse possession are inconsistent.

Subramania Chettiar, the defendant is the appellant herein.

2. Tmt. Amirtham and her minor children, the respondents herein filed the suit for declaration and permanent injunction against the appellant. The trial Court decreed the suit. Aggrieved by the same, the appellant filed the appeal before the lower appellate Court, which in turn dismissed the appeal, while confirming the judgment and decree passed by the trial Court. Hence, the second appeal by the defendant/appellant.

3. The case of the plaintiffs is as follows:

"The suit house originally belonged to one Palaniandi Chettiar. He died leaving behind two sons Gopal and Nagappan. In the oral partition between the said Gopal and Nagappan, the suit house was allotted to Nagappan. The first plaintiff is the wife of the said Nagappan and other plaintiffs are their children. Nagappan died in 1976. The plaintiffs continued to be in possession and enjoyment of the suit house from then onwards for more than 25 years. So, by inheritance and by virtue of possessory title, they have become entitled to the suit house. While so, Subramania Chettiar, the defendant claims that he purchased the suit property from Palaniandi Chettiar's wife Muthammal in the year 1953 and is trying to interfere with the plaintiffs' possession. Prior to 1956, as per Hindu Succession Act, women were not entitled to any property right. Therefore, the said sale deed was not a valid one. Moreover, the sale deed had not been given effect to. The defendant was never in possession of the suit house. Hence, the suit for declaration and permanent injunction."

4. The case of the defendant is as follows:

"The first plaintiff is not the wife of Nagappan Chettiar, the son of the original owner Palaniandi Chettiar. The plaintiffs had not been in possession and enjoyment of the house for more than 25 years. Palaniandi Chettiar died leaving behind two minor sons and his wife Muthammal. Muthammal as a guardian had incurred debts. Muthammal did not have necessary funds to deepen the family well. For family necessity and for necessity of the minors, she incurred debts. Since she could not discharge the debts, she sold the suit property to the defendant. From then onwards, the defendant enjoyed the property. The defendant was originally employed in the Army. After retirement, he settled at Madras. The suit house was let out to several tenants from time to time. In 1980, the first plaintiff requested the defendant to let out the house to her for rent of Rs.15/- per month. She paid rent for some time in lump sums. Taking advantage of the absence of the defendant in the suit village, she claimed the property as her own. So, he asked the first plaintiff to vacate the house. Therefore, the plaintiffs filed the suit. The plaintiffs were never in possession of the house before 1980. They have been in possession of the house only as tenant. Therefore, the suit is liable to be dismissed."

5. On the basis of the above pleadings, the necessary issues were framed by the trial Court. On behalf of the plaintiffs, P.Ws.1 and 2 were examined and filed Exs.A1 to A12. The defendant examined himself as D.W.1 and filed Exs.B1 to B12.

6. On consideration of the entire materials placed before it, the trial Court accepted the plaintiffs' case and decreed the suit as prayed for. Aggrieved by the said judgment and decree, the defendant filed an appeal before the lower appellate Court. Since the appeal was dismissed, the present appeal has been preferred before this Court by the defendant/appellant.

7. At the time of admission, this Court formulated the following substantial questions of law:

1) Whether it is open to the trial Court as well as the first appellate Court to give a declaration about the validity of a document, which is only a voidable document, where the plaintiff has not asked for such a relief?

2) Whether the finding of the Courts below that the plaintiff has perfected title by adverse possession is based on no evidence?

8. In elabor