The main legal point established in the judgment is that adverse possession requires specific particulars and a hostile nature of possession, which the plaintiffs failed to establish.

(Prayer: Second appeal has been filed under Section 100 of C.P.C., against the judgment and decree dated 13.11.2000 passed in A.S.No.49 of 1999 by the Second Additional District Court, Tirunelveli, confirming the judgment and decree dated 25.04.1996 passed in O.S.No.201 of 1991 by the Principal Subordinate Court, Tirunelveli.)

Challenge in this second appeal is to the concurrent judgments passed in Original Suit No.201 of 1991 by the Principal Subordinate Court, Tirunelveli and in Appeal Suit No.49 of 1999 by the Second Additional District Court, Tirunelveli.

2. The appellant and respondents 4 to 8 herein as plaintiffs have instituted Original Suit No.201 of 1991 on the file of the trial Court, for the reliefs of declaration and perpetual injunction, wherein the present respondents 1 to 3 have been shown as defendants.

3. It is averred in the plaint that the plaintiffs are brothers and sisters. The plaintiffs 1 & 2 are the children of the deceased Moondruyugam born through is first wife by name Vasantha and the remaining plaintiffs are the children of the said Moondruyugam born through his second wife by name Parvathy. The first defendant is the husband of the second defendant and the second defendant is the sister of Moondruyugam. The suit property is originally belonged to one Sadagopa Iyengar of Nanguneri. The second defendant viz., Seethalakshmi has purchased the suit property under a registered sale deed dated 12.04.1955 and the second defendant has leased out the suit property to her father by name Kalyani Chettiar for monthly rent of Rs.25/-and the said Kalyani Chettiar is the paternal grand father of the plaintiffs. The said Kalyani Chettiar has entered into an agreement of sale with the second defendant and thereby agreed to purchase the suit property for a sum of Rs.3,500/-and the sale agreement has come into existence between the said Kalyani Chettiar and second defendant on 08.06.1956 and the said Kalyani Chettiar has paid Rs.3,000/-towards sale consideration. In the sale agreement, one year has been fixed for executing a sale deed. The possession of the suit property has been handed over to the said Kalyani Chettiar by the second defendant and he has had enjoyed the suit property till his demise. He has also borrowed Rs.1,000/-from one Arunachalam Pillai by way of executing a registered mortgage deed dated 23.07.1956. Before the demise of Kalyani Chettiar, he executed a Will dated 14.08.1969, bequeathing the suit property in favour of his wife Valliammal with the specific direction to enjoy the suit property till her life time and after her demise his son by name Moondruyugam has to succeed the suit property. The said Kalyani Chettiar has passed away on 25.09.1977 and therefore, the Will executed by him has come into effect. Since the father of the plaintiffs by name Moondruyugam has passed away, the plaintiffs have acquired title to the suit property by virtue of the Will dated 14.08.1969. The said Kalyani Chettiar, his wife Valliammal and their son Moondruyugam and their grand children viz., plaintiffs, have been in possession of the suit property for more than 36 years and thereby prescribed title to the same by adverse possession. Now the defendants are trying to disturb the peaceful possession and enjoyment of the plaintiffs. Under the said circumstances, the present suit has been instituted so as to declare that the plaintiffs have prescribed title to the suit property by adverse possession and also for restraining the defendants from interfering with the peaceful possession and enjoyment of the plaintiffs by means of perpetual injunction.

4. It is averred in the written statement filed on the side of the defendants 1 & 2 that the relationship mentioned in the plaint is correct. It is false to say that the second defendant has executed the sale agreement dated 08.06.1956 in favour of her father viz., Kalyani Chettiar. The second defendant has never received a sum of Rs.3,000/-from her father. It