The main legal point established in the judgment is that a party cannot claim adverse possession if they have signed as a witness in a sale deed and entered into a tenancy agreement with the owner of the property.

All the three second appeals have been taken up together for final hearing by the consent of the counsels, as they involve common issues. In view of the fact that the respondent had died, his legal heirs had been brought on record, as sole respondent by orders of this Court, dated 28. 2009 and 10. 2009.

S.A.No.1512 of 2000:

This second appeal has been filed against the judgment and decree, dated 24. 2000, made in A.S.No.53 of 1998, on the file of the Sub Judge, Poonamallee, confirming the judgment and decree dated 38. 1998, made in O.S.No.272 of 1996, on the file of the District Munsif Court, Poonamallee.

2. The defendant in the suit, in O.S.No.272 of 1996, is the appellant in the present second appeal. The respondent in the present second appeal was the plaintiff in the said suit.

3. The plaintiff had filed the suit, in O.S.No.272 of 1996, on the file of the District Munsif Court, Poonamallee, praying for a declaration to declare the plaintiffs title to the property prescribed in A schedule, appended to the plaint, for recovery of vacant possession of the suit property, after removing the superstructure put up thereon; for mandatory injunction directing the defendants to demolish the wall and the superstructure put up by the defendant and for costs.

4. The plaintiff in the suit, who is the respondent in the present second appeal, had stated that the property described in A schedule had originally belonged to one Hari Govindan, son of Narayan Nair. The defendant in the suit, who is the appellant in the present second appeal, had entered into an agreement of sale with the said Hari Govindan, but he did not fulfil the contract, within the stipulated period. Instead, the defendant had trespassed into the A schedule property, unlawfully, without having the sale deed executed in his favour from Hari Govindan. Therefore, Hari Govindan had filed a suit before the District Munsif Court, Poonamallee, in O.S.No.49 of 1977, against the defendant for recovery of possession of the property. The said suit was decreed, on 22. 1977, giving the defendant one month time to vacate the property. Since, the defendant had not contested the suit, an ex-parte decree had been passed in the suit, by the District Munsif Court, Poonamallee.

5. While Hari Govindan was making arrangements to execute the decree, the defendant had been requesting for time to vacate the property, to avoid execution of the decree. While so, the defendant, who is related to the plaintiff, had persuaded the plaintiff to purchase the property in question from Hari Govindan. The defendant had also requested the plaintiff to permit him to continue his occupation of the property as a tenant under the plaintiff. On such persuasion, the plaintiff had purchased the property from Hari Govindan, under a registered sale deed, dated 18. 1977.

6. Thus, the plaintiff had become the owner of the property mentioned in schedule A of the plaint. The defendant had also attested the sale deed executed by Hari Govindan, in favour of the plaintiff.

7. The plaintiff had further stated that the defendant had executed the rent note for the B schedule property, agreeing to pay a monthly rent of Rs.5/-. Thereafter, the defendant had continued to occupy the B schedule property. Even though the rent note was for one year, the defendant had continued to occupy the property even thereafter. Therefore, the plaintiff had been requesting the defendant, orally, to vacate the property so that he could put up construction thereon. However, the defendant had not vacated from the property.

8. The plaintiff had further stated that the defendant is only a tenant under the plaintiff and that he had also executed a rent note, in respect of the property. In such circumstances, the defendant has filed a suit, in O.S.No.2315 of 1987, and had obtained an order of interim injunction. Since the defendant claims right to the entire A schedule property, the plaintiff is to file a suit for declaration of his titl