1. A mistake in mentioning the door number or the extent in a document would not matter when the identity of the property is established. 2. The burden of proof is on the defendants who claim title by adverse possession.

1. The plaintiff who succeeded before the trial Court and lost before the Lower Appellate Court is the appellant. The suit O.S. No. 191 of 1980 was filed by him before the Subordinate Judges Court, Chidambaram for declaration, recovery of possession, past profits in a sum of Rs. 200/- and future profits against one Ramu Bathar, Srinivasa Bathar, Abdul Rahim Abdul Karim and Sheik Hussain. Ramu Bathar died pending suit, his legal heirs were impleaded as defendants 6 to 13 and they are respondents 3 to 10 in the Second Appeal.

2. The description of the property as set out in the plaint is “in Chidambaram Registration District. Chidambaram Sub-registry. Chidambaram Town, in Bazaar Street South of the street, North of Lalkhan Mosque land. West of Ghouse Hameed Maracairs property sold to Shanmugam Chettiar, East of Bakshikhan Sahibs shop, within this the shop bearing door No. 191 and 191-A, Ward No. 6, Block No. 6, T.S. No. 628 Sq. ft. 90.”

3. The case of the Appellant/Plaintiff was as follows:

The property belonged to one Mr. Mohammed Sultan S/o Naguda Maracair who sold it under Ex. A1 dated 2.6.1952 to Mohammed Hussain. Mohammed Hussain in his turn sold the property under Ex. A2 dated 26.4.1976 to one Mohammed Hazan S/o Mohammed Sultan under Ex. A3 dated 29.4.1980. Mohammed Hazan sold the property to the plaintiff. The second defendant was a tenant under Mohammed Hussain and was doing business. He was also paying tax out of the monthly rent. The third defendant was also tenant but under Mohammed Hazan and east West measurement of 7 feet was leased out by the third defendant to the first defendant Rama Bathar and East West 3 feet was leased out to the fourth defendant Abdul Karim. The third defendant was paying Rs. 200/-monthly rent to Mohammed Hazan. The sub-lease by the third defendant to the first and the fourth defendant was not valid. The first defendant and the second defendant were claiming absolute title from predecessors in title and the other defendants were claiming sub-tenancy from D1 and D2. There was a notice issued under the original of Ex. A4 on 6.6.1980 setting out true and correct rights to defendants 1, 3 and 4. The monthly rent was demanded at Rs. 200/- and the demand for payment of rent was not complied with. They were trespassers having no right and the suit was filed.

4. The first defendant filed a written statement to the following effect;

The plaintiff/vendor had himself no title to the suit property, consequently plaintiff also did not derive any right. One Ellappa Bathar the first defendants father who died about 20 years prior to the filing of the suit exercised rights as owner in respect of Door No. 191 and was enjoying the same. After his death the first and the second defendants were in enjoyment and in a family arrangement the first defendant got it as an absolute property. He did not become a tenant under anybody. The title particulars in the plaint were not correct. The first and the second defendants were in possession and enjoyment for several 12 years and prescribed for title by adverse possession. The monthly rent claim was more than the market rate Rs. 25/- would be the proper rent. Property Tax was always paid by the first defendant. The bill was also given in the name of the first defendant. The second defendant was an unnecessary party to the suit. Door No. 191-A was in the exclusive possession and enjoyment of the third defendant. His rights did not flow through first defendants source of title. The combining of 191 and 191-A from the claimant by the first and second defendants were through different sources amounted to misjoinder of causes of action, misjoinder of parties and the suit was liable to be dismissed.

5. The second defendant adopted the written statement of the first defendant. The third defendant resisted the suit as follows:

The plaintiff and his predecessors in title have no right, title or interest. Mohammed Hussain did not get possession. The plaintiffs sale deed is