The court emphasized the importance of valid execution of wills and title deeds, the burden of proof in adverse possession claims, and the principle that adverse possession and title claims are mutually inconsistent.

1. The 3rd defendant is the appellant herein. The suit arising out of which is the present Second Appeal is filed for the relief of declaration and recovery of possession and for mesne profits in respect of the suit property numbering 17 items. The suit is filed against the three defendants and the suit is seriously contested between the plaintiff and the 3rd defendant. The trial court dismissed the suit and aggrieved against the same, the plaintiff preferred A.S.No.57 of 1996 and the appellate court reversed the judgment of the trial court and decreed the suit as prayed for. Hence the Second Appeal by the 3rd defendant before this court.

2. The Second Appeal is admitted on the following Substantial Questions of Law :

1. Whether the lower Appellate Court is right in decreeing the suit on the basis of the will alleged to have been executed by Selliammal and when the same is shrouded with mystery and suspicion?

2. Whether the lower Appellate Court had not ignored the Revenue auction sale in respect of Item No.1 and Exs.B1 and B2, the sale in favour of Thoppili Ammal and Periasamy Moopar respectively and the possession of his predecessor?

3. Whether the lower Appellate Court is right in its appreciation of the principles of adverse possession and whether its judgment is not opposed to the dictum laid down by the Division Bench of the Madras High Court in 1993 2 MLJ page 598?

4. Whether the lower Appellate Court has not committed serious error in ignoring the revenue records and whether its judgment is not opposed to the Judgment in AIR 1989 Supreme Court 1269?

3. As already referred to the suit is filed against three defendants out of whom the defendants one and two are non else than the father and the brother of the plaintiff and they did not contest either the suit or appeal. The plaintiff claimed title to the suit properties on the strength of Ex.A6 to Ex.A11 sale deeds executed in favour of Chellammal and Ex.A12 patta, in respect of the suit properties and Ex.A1 will executed by Chellammal. According to the plaintiff, the plaintiff being handicapped was brought up by his grand mother Chellammal and his father was leading a wayward life and the grand mother being unhappy with the life style of the first defendant and being affectionate and sympathetic with the handicapped grand son, executed the will duly in the manner known to law in sound disposing state of mind thereby bequeathed all the properties in favour of the plaintiff and the property is the subject matter of the present suit and the possession of the suit properties by the grand father thereafter by the plaintiff was unlawfully interfered with by the defendants 1 to 3 who trespassed into the suit property, thereby denying the right of the plaintiff in respect of the same.

4. The father and the brother of the plaintiff did not contest the suit and the suit was resisted by the 3 defendant. According to him the 3rd defendant was in possession and enjoyment of the suit properties for more then 26 years and he purchased the suit item No.1 in the public auction held by revenue Tahsildar on 20.05.1964 and he had been in possession of the same till 19.11.1966 the date on which he sold the suit item No.1 and suit item Nos.2 to 4 which are the ancestral property of the 3rd defendant to one Thopilliammal by sale deed dated 19.11.1966 for sale consideration of Rs.500/-. Thoppliammal had in turn sold the suit first item to the one Perisamy Moopanar who is the brother in law of the 3rd defendant by registered sale deed dated 17.04.1970, on the same day effected the oral sale of suit items 2 to 4 in favour of the 3rd defendant for sale consideration of Rs.90 and the subsequent purchaser Perisami Moopanar during 1972 orally sold suit item No.1 to the 3rd defendant for sale consideration of Rs.95 and the 3rd defendant has been in possession and enjoyment of the suit properties for more than 26 years as on the date of suit during 1998. It is his further case that suit items