The plea of adverse possession can only be raised as a defense and not as a sword, and seeking a declaration based on adverse possession is not maintainable.

1. The above appeal arises against the judgment and decree passed in A.S.No.11 of 2008 on the file of the Principle District Court, Chengalpet, confirming the judgment and decree passed in I.A.No.696 of 2006 in O.S.No.73 of 2006 on the file of the Principal Sub Court, Chengalpet. The plaintiffs are the appellants and the respondents were the defendants in the suit.

2. The plaintiffs filed the suit in O.S.No.73 of 2006 for the following reliefs:

(i) for a declaration that these plaintiffs have perfected their title to the plaint schedule property lands by adverse possession and prescription and for a consequential relief of injunction restraining the defendants from in any manner interfering with these plaintiffs' peaceful possession and enjoyment of the plaint schedule land and the leather industry upon the plaint schedule or in the alternative for a declaration that these plaintiffs are the absolute owners of the plaint schedule properties under a possessory title and for a consequential injunction restraining the defendants from in any manner interfering with these plaintiffs' peaceful possession and enjoyment of the plaint schedule land and leather industry upon the plaint schedule lands;

(ii) for a declaration that the first defendant Company had no legal and physical existence and hence a fictitious Company;

(iii) for costs of the suit; and

(iv) for such other suitable relief.

3. The brief facts necessary for the disposal of the Second Appeal are as follows:

The plaintiffs are the brothers and partners of M/s.Sagayi Leather Trading Company. Their father, Late K.Abdul Rasheed, administered the said partnership business till his death. The plaintiffs' father, as a partner of the said Company, is a tenant under the first defendant Company. The first defendant Company initiated rent control proceedings against the partnership firm for eviction. Eviction was ordered by consent, granting six months time on 30.01.1990. Therefore, the ownership of the first defendant to the suit was admitted by the plaintiffs' father. The plaintiffs' father entered into a Sale Agreement on 27.01.1990, agreeing to purchase a portion of the suit property under his occupation. The said Abdul Rasheed died on 03.01.2002 and after the demise of Abdul Rasheed, his sons viz., the plaintiffs succeeded to the administration of the partnership business and paid rents to the first defendant Company. Thereafter, the plaintiffs filed a suit for specific performance in O.S.No.171 of 2003, in which they admitted the ownership of the first defendant Company in respect of the suit property. The plaintiffs presented the present suit on 30.01.2006 and was subsequently re-presented and taken on file on 31.03.2006. The plaintiffs filed the present suit while the earlier suit in O.A.No.171 of 2003 was pending. Subsequently, on 04.04.2006, the plaintiffs not pressed the suit in O.S.No.171 of 2003, without disclosing the initiation of the present suit. The plaintiffs all along contended that the first defendant Company is the owner of the property and the partnership firm viz., M/s.Sagayi Leather Trading Company was in possession of the suit property, as a tenant and by filing the present suit, they took a different stand stating that they prescribed title by adverse possession. In the suit in O.S.No.171 of 2003, the plaintiffs' obtained interim injunction not to disturb their possession and enjoyed the order of injunction till 04.04.2006. In the present suit also, they obtained an order of injunction on 31.03.2006 not to disturb their possession, therefore, the plaintiffs obtained and enjoyed two orders of interim injunction from 31.03.2006 to 04.04.2006 on the basis of two inconsistent pleas taken against the defendants (i.e.) in O.S.No.171 of 2003, the plaintiffs enjoyed an order of injunction as Agreement Holder as the owner and in O.S.No.73 of 2006, obtained an order of injunction as if the plaintiffs are the owners. It is settled law that a person clai