Mere denial of title of others will not give benefit of adverse possession.

(Second appeal under Section 100 CPC against the decree and judgment dated 20.03.1982 made in A.S. No. 16 of 1981 on the file of Subordinate Judge, Tiruppur reversing the Decree and Judgment dated 28.08.1980 made in O.S. No. 217 of 1977 on the file of District Munsif Court, Tiruppur. )

The Plaintiff is the appellant in this second appeal who has filed the suit in O.S. No. 217 of 1977 on the file of District Munsif Court, Thiruppur for injunction which was decreed. The appeal in A.S. No. 16 of 1981 filed by the defendants 1 and 2/respondents 1 and 2 herein before the Sub Court, Tiruppur was allowed on 20.03.1982, which was challenged by the appellant by filing the above said Second Appeal No. 1463 of 1982 and the same was disposed of, the matter was remanded back to the trial court for fresh disposal by Order dated 30.03.2001. In and by the said order dated 30.03.2001, the appellant was also permitted to include the relief of declaration. As against the same, respondents 5 and 6 herein have filed Civil Appeal No. 7620 of 2002 before the Honourable Supreme Court, which remitted back the matter to this Court by Order dated 22.11.2002 wherein it was held thus:-

“For the aforegoing reasons, the impugned order of the High Court is partly modified. Instead, it is directed that:

(i) The order to the extent remanding the case to trial court is set aside. The High Court shall retain seisin of the case;

(ii) The legal representatives shall be brought on record in the appeal itself;

(iii) The plaintiffs shall be permitted to add the relief of declaration in the plaint, as allowed by the High Court and after affording the defendant an opportunity of incorporating consequential amendment, the additional evidence shall be recorded under the orders of the High Court in the manner prescribed by Order 41 Rule 27-28-29 of the CPC;

(iv) The appeal shall thereafter be heard afresh on merits and disposed of in accordance with law.

The appeal stands disposed of in the above terms.”

2. Pursuant to the said order passed by the Honourable Supreme Court the appellant herein has filed CMP No. 13772 of 2005 praying for amendment of the plaint in O.S. No. 217 of 1977 to include the relief of declaration and the same was allowed by this Court on 02.12.2005. The appellant herein filed CMP No.10389 of 2006 to delete the names of the respondents 3 and 4 in the appeal which was also allowed on 16.11.2006 as the respondents therein have not opposed.

3. Before the trial court, the Plaintiff has marked Exs. A1 to A94 and the Plaintiff examined herself as PW1, Murugaswami Gounder, Periaswami Gounder, P. Ramaswami and Venkitaraman were examined as Pws 2 to 5 respectively. On behalf of the defendants, Exs. B1 to B15 were marked and 2nd and 3rd defendants were examined as Dws 1 and 2 respectively.

4. For the sake of convenience, the parties are referred to as they were arrayed in the second appeal.

5. The appellant is sister of the second respondent. The first respondent is the husband of the second respondent. The respondents 5 and 6 are sons of Respondents respondents 1 and 2 who were impleaded as legal heirs after the death of respondents 1 and 2.

6. The case of the appellant is as follows:-

The plaint mentioned properties originally belonged to Palani Gounder, father of the appellant herein. The said Palani Gounder died leaving behind his wife Ponnammal, son Easwaran and four daughters namely Palanathal/2nd respondent herein, Meenakshi, Perumathal and Subbathal @ Nanjammal/appellant herein. According to the appellant, she was married to Subramania Gounder @ Subbanna Gounder, as second wife. The first wife of the said Subramania Gounder was the said Perumathal, one of her sister. After the death of the appellant's father namely Palani Gounder, his wife Ponnammal along with her minor son Easwaran were in possession and enjoyment of the suit properties. The said Easwaran died unmarried. Thereafter, the appellant and her mother were in possession and enjoyment of the