JUDGMENT: The unsuccessful plaintiffs, as respondents before the First Appellate Court in A.S.No.194 of 1986, are the appellants.

2. Thiru A.A.Paramasivam as plaintiff had filed a suit, for declaration of his title to the suit property, for possession and for mesne profits or in the alternative for partition of his 35/56th share, on the grounds that the suit property originally belonged to one Kader Mohideen Rowther, who died leaving his wife by name, Rosammal and two sons by name Diwan Mohideen and K.Ponnu, that Diwan Mohideen died leaving his wife Zeenath Beevi and each one was entitled to 1/3 share in the suit property, that the plaintiff has filed O.S.No.227 of 1965 for recovery of money and obtained a decree on 4.8.1965, that in order to realise the decree amount, filing E.P.No.796 of 1966, attached the property on 24.11.1966, that he bought the property in the Court auction sale held on 28.8.1974, after obtaining the leave of the Court, that in pursuance of the sale certificate, he took delivery of possession in E.A.No.664 of 1975, after the removal of obstruction created by defendants 1 to 5, that the second defendant on behalf of the first defendant agreed to be the tenant of the premises, that thereafter, he committed wilful default and therefore, eviction petition was filed, which was dismissed with an observation that there is a dispute regarding title and the same has to be decided by a Civil Court and that he was constrained to file a suit, for the above said reliefs.

3. The defendants 1 to 8, who are the respondents herein, opposed the claim of the plaintiff contending that Kader Mohideen Rowther - the original owner had executed an othi on 21.5.1934 for Rs.1,000 in favour of one Amir Basha Rowther in respect of the suit property, that the said Amir Basha Rowther assigned the othi in favour of the 8th defendant’s father by name Alla Pitchai Rowther, that after the death of the original owner, his son Ponnu executed a mortgage deed on 25.8.1949 for Rs.1,700 in favour of Alla Pitchai Rowther, in respect of his share, that Alla Pitchai Rowther had filed O.S.No.653 of 1966 and obtained a preliminary decree on 17.12.1966, that the 8th defendant purchased 1/8th share from Kamala Beevi under a sale deed dated 15.2.1968, that he also obtained another sale deed from Kannammal Beevi with respect to her on 10.11.1968, that he had purchased, the share from Zeenath Beevi on 15.2.1968, that the 8th defendant’s minor brother obtained a sale deed from Jameela Beevi on 10.4.1967 with regard to her 1/8th share, in addition to a release deed from his brothers, that in view of the above sales, the 8th defendant is entitled to 5/8th share in the suit property, that the defendants are in possession and enjoyment of the suit property in their own right, adverse to the real owner, thereby they have not only perfected title to the suit property by adverse possession, but also acquired title under the above said sale deeds regarding the suit properties, in which the plaintiff is neither entitled to declaration nor possession nor any other reliefs. On the basis of the above defence, inter alia, the contesting defendants prayed for the dismissal of the suit.

4. The learned Principal Subordinate Judge, Periakulam framing as many as 11 issues, tried the case. In the trial, on behalf of the plaintiff, 20 documents were exhibited, seeking support from the oral evidence of P.Ws.1 and 2. To nullify the effect of the above evidence, if any, and to make out a case as pleaded in their written statement, on behalf of the contesting defendants, 47 documents were exhibited, in addition to the examination of the 6th defendant as D.W.1, 8th defendant as D.W.3, apart from three other witnesses as D.Ws.2, 4 and 5. The learned Subordinate Judge, Periakulam, while evaluating the above materials, weighing the same in the proper scale and also applying the provisions of law as to the extent required, came to the conclusion that the plaintiff had established his

Click Here to Read the rest of this document