These second appeals have been preferred against the judgments and decrees dated 16. 99 made in A.S.Nos.20 and 21 of 1999 on the file of III Additional District Judge, Pondicherry in confirming the judgments and decrees dated 26. 1998 made in O.S.Nos. 760 and 761 of 1996.

2. The defendant in O.S.No.760 of 1996 is the appellant in S.A.No.1106 of 1999 and the plaintiff is the respondent. The appellants in S.A.No.1107 of 1996 are the defendants in O.S.No.761 of 1996.

3. The averments made in the plaint O.S.No.760 of 1999 are as follows:-

(a) The plaintiffs grand father Yusuff Sahib donated a portion of the suit property to his wife Kadar Bi and another portion to his son Haniff Sahib under a registered donation deed dated 16. 1934. From the date of gift, both were in possession and enjoyment of their respective shares. After the death of Haniff Sahib, his son the plaintiff herein inherited the property and also he has a share in the grand mothers property. The defendant colluded with one tenant Abdul Aziz filed suit in O.S.No.295 of 1981 for declaration of title to the suit property and the suit has been dismissed. The defendant preferred appeal in A.S.No.65 of 1983 which was also dismissed. She has not preferred any second appeal. Hence the judgment is final and conclusive and binding the parties.

.(b) Theplaintiff herein filed O.S.No.551 of 1983 for eviction of the persons namely Abdul Aziz, Shaffia bi, Ibrahim and Muthu. The suit was dismissed. Against the dismissal of the suit, he preferred an appeal in A.S.183 of 1990 which was allowed. Against the appeal suit this defendant and one Abdul Aziz have preferred second appeal in S.A.No.1854 of 1981 which was dismissed at the stage of admission itself. So the plaintiff filed E.P.No.8 of 1992 which was pending.

.(c) The defendant shifted her residence from the Kaderbi property to Hanif Sahibs property on 1. 1990 when the plaintiff was out of station. The defendant is a tress passer and unauthorised occupier of the plaintiffs property. The co-sharer of the suit property executed a release deed in favour of the plaintiff. So the plaintiff alone is having exclusive and absolute title over the suit property. The defendant is trying to obtain electricity service connection in her name by furnishing false information to the Electricity Department. The plaintiff took possession of the house from Abdul Aziz, Shaffia Bi, Ibrahim and Muthu.

.(d) Theplaintiff issued legal notice on 20.6.1994 for delivery of possession. The defendant received the notice and gave a belated reply with false allegation. Hence the plaintiff has come forward with the suit for declaration of title to the suit property and recovery of possession and prayed for a decree.

4. The gist andessence of the written statement filed by the defendant in O.S.No.760 of 1999 are as follows.

(a) The plaintiff has to prove his title to this suit property and his predecessor in title. The defendant along with 5 others filed a suit in O.S.No.295 of 1981 against the plaintiff and 4 others. The suit is bad for non joinder of necessary parties. The plaintiff filed O.S.No.551 of 1988 since the defendant is not party, it is not binding on him. The defendant never shifted his residence from Kader Bis property to Haniff Sahibs property on 1. 1990. She is in possession and enjoyment of the property measuring 12 X 15 feet from 13. 1960. She is in possession and enjoyment of the above said property openly, continuously, peacefully, and without any interruption from anybody and this fact is very well known to this plaintiff herein and the children of this defendant were born at the place where she is now residing. Thereby she is in possession and enjoyment of the property more than 35 years and has perfected title by adverse possession. The suit is not maintainable.

5. The averments made in the plaint filed in O.S.No.761 of 1999 are as follows:

(a) The plaintiffs grand father Yusuff Sahib donated a portion of the suit property