A party claiming less than entitled should not be denied relief, and the court can grant a decree based on the extent the party is entitled to.

1. The second appeal is preferred against the judgment and decree of the learned Subordinate Judge, Namakkal in A.S.No.10 of 1988 confirming the judgment and decree of the learned District Munsif, Namakkal in O.S.No.503 of 1985.

2. The plaintiff is the appellant herein. The case of the plaintiff as set out in the plaint can be stated as follows:

The suit property is an agricultural land in Survey No.299/8 in Lathuvadi village, Namakkal Taluk, Salem District with an area of 3.58 acres. The case of the plaintiff is that one Vaiyapuri Gounder, who is the husband of the first plaintiff and father of plaintiffs 2 and 3 purchased under two sale deeds viz., dated 7.11.1966 and 3.3.1969 and since then he was in possession and enjoyment of the same without any interruption till his death. After the demise of Vaiyapuri Gounder, the plaintiffs have been enjoying the said property. The defendants who have no manner of title or interest in the above said property, at the instigation of some people who are ill-disposed of towards plaintiffs, claimed ownership to the suit property and that in fact from 16.6.1985 onwards they have been interfering with the peaceful possession and enjoyment of the suit property by the plaintiffs. The plaintiffs also claim that even assuming defendants have any right or title, they have lost their right by non-enjoyment over the statutory period. The plaintiffs sought for declaration that they are entitled to the suit property and for consequential permanent injunction.

3. The first defendant filed a written statement adopted by defendants 2 and 3 contending that defendants retaining for themselves 10 cents of land sold only the balance to Vaiyapuri Gounder in the said survey number 299/8 and actually the sister of the defendants was in possession of that property (10 cents) and residing therein. After her death, it is the defendants who have been in possession and enjoyment of the said 10 cents of land. The further case set out in the written statement is that in fact in respect of that 10 cents of land, they have entered into an agreement to sell to one Palanisamy, son of Chinnusamy Goundar for a total consideration of Rs.9,000 and in fact received an advance of Rs.3,500. It is also contended by the defendants that since they refused to sell the property viz., 10 cents of land at a cheaper rate to the plaintiffs, they have filed the suit only to harass them.

4. The learned District Munsif after elaborately considering the oral and documentary evidence, came to the conclusion that the plaintiffs have not come to the Court with clean hands and since dispute between the parties was only with reference to 10 cents of land and that further plaintiffs have not proved their title to the disputed 10 cents of lands. Ultimately the learned District Munsif dismissed the entire suit.

5. Onappeal the appellate Court also confirmed the judgment and decree of the trial Court.

6. At the time of admission, this Court formed following two substantial questions of law for consideration.

"(1) Whether the lower appellate Court was right in the view it took that the appellants have not prescribed title to the property of an extent of 10 cents; and (2) Whether the courts below were right in dismissing the suit in toto when the respondents have accepted the right of the appellants to the entire extent of the land, excepting 10 cents ?"

7. The plaint schedule property is to an extent of 3.58 acres of land in the village Lathuvadi in Namakkal Taluk in Salem District. While it is the case of the appellants/ plaintiffs that they are entitled for the entire property and that even assuming defendants had any right in any part of this property, the plaintiffs have perfected their title by adverse possession. On the other hand, the case of the respondents/ defendants is that they sold the property retaining 10 cents of land in that survey number to Vaiyapuri, who in turn sold to the 1st plaintiff’s husband and that they are no