No specific plea regarding existence of co-owners raised by defendant at the time filing suit.

Defendants 1 to 3 are the appellants before me. Respondents 1 and 2 suit for declaration of the title of the 1st plaintiff to the suit property and also declaration that the 2nd plaintiff is a lessee of the 1st plaintiff in respect of the suit under the registered lease deed dated 7.1.1975. They also prayed for an injunction restraining the defendants from interfering with their possession. Subsequently, they prayed for an alternative relief of recovery of possession by amending the plaint.

2. The case set out in the plaint is shortly as follows: The suit property originally belonged Muthial Animal, mother of the 1st plaintiff by purchase under a registered sale deed 25.4.1932 executed by one Ramaswamy Maistry. She was in possession till her death about 1950. On her death, the property devolved on the 1st plaintiff and as she was away from the suit village after her marriage, the properties were entrusted to certain persons, who were cultivating the same on her behalf. The 2nd plaintiff started cultivation a lessee under the 1st plaintiff from about 1969 under a machalika and on 7.1.1975 a deed was executed and registered in favour of the 2nd plaintiff. The 1st defendant is a relation of the 1st plaintiff. Taking advantage of her absence in the village, the 1st defendant is claiming hostile title and setting up defendants 2 and 3 to claim permissive possession through him. Hence the suit instituted. The 4th defendant is impleaded only as a formal and no relief is sought against him.

3. A written statement was filed by the 2nd defendant, who is said to be a lessee under 1st defendant. The substance of the written statement is that the suit properties purchased in the name of Muthial Ammal by her father Narasimha Maistry, benami for benefit, and Muthial Ammal never had any right to the properties. She was never possession. After the life-time of Narasimha Maistry and his brother, Muthial Ammal the ostensible owner received certain amounts from the 1st defendant and sold properties orally to the 1st defendant. The 1st defendant became the absolute owner such oral sale. The defendants have been in possession ousting the rights of Muthial Ammal. Her right was extinguished by virtue of Sec.27 of the Limitation Act. The relationship alleged between the parties is true. But the date of death of Muthial Ammal is not correctly The 2nd plaintiff, who is inimical, towards defendants 1 and 2 created false documents the active assistance of the Village Munsif and several evil-mongers. The 2nd plaintiff obtained an injunction suppressing the facts and producing false documents. The defendants have been in possession for over forty years and thus they have prescribed title by adverse possession. Hence the suit should be dismissed.

4. Neither the 1st defendant nor the 3rd defendant filed any written statement. There however, an endorsement on the written statement filed by the 2nd defendant reading follows:

“Defendants 1 and 3 adopt the statement of the defendant”. There is no signature below the endorsement. There is nothing on record to show as to who made endorsement. If defendants 1 and 3 wanted to adopt the written statement of the defendant, they should have made the endorsement themselves, or atleast counsel appearing for them should have signed the endorsement to show that the endorsement made on behalf of the parties. The unsigned endorsement without any date thereunder not establish that defendants 1 and 3 adopted the written statement of the 2nd defendant. However, there is a sentence in the judgment of the trial court in paragraph 3 to the that the written statement of the 2nd defendant was adopted by defendants 1 and 3.

5. For the purposes of this appeal, I will proceed on the footing that the written statement the 2nd defendant was adopted by the defendants 1 and 3. However, that will not have same effect as if the 1st defendant filed a written statement.

6. The trial court found that Muthial Ammal died on 20.9.1957 as