The central legal point established in the judgment is that without proving title, a claim for recovery of possession cannot be sustained.

1. This memorandum of second appeal has been directed against the judgment and decree, dated 14.9.1998 and made in A.S.No.69 of 1999 on the file of the learned Subordinate Judge, Mayiladuthurai reversing the judgment and decree, dated 27.2.1998 and made in O.S.No.57 of 1985 on the file of the learned District Munsif, Sirkali.

2. The appellant herein is the defendant in the suit, whereas the respondent is the plaintiff.

3. During the pendency of the second appeal, the appellant had passed away. Therefore, the appellants 2 to 4 have been brought on record as the legal representatives of the deceased appellant in view of the order of this Court, dated 29.11.2011 and made in C.M.P.Nos.732 to 735 of 2011.

4. For easy reference and also for the sake of convenience, the respondent may hereinafter be referred to as the plaintiff, whereas the appellant be referred to as the defendant, wherever the context so require.

5. The facts which are absolutely necessary for the disposal of the second appeal are as under:-

a. The suit property is situated in Erukkur Village, Sirkali Taluk.

b. According to the plaintiff, he had got the suit property through his grandfather under a registered settlement deed, dated 14.12.1949.

c. The above said settlement deed was accepted by the plaintiff and was also acted upon. In pursuant to the settlement deed, he has been in possession and enjoyment as absolute owner thereof.

d. The suit property is a grow consisting of 58 yielding coconut trees and two mango trees and as such they have been in possession and enjoyment of the plaintiff.

e. The defendant was working under the plaintiff as a watchman for about one year from March 1982 and thereafter, he was not serving under him from March 1983. Therefore, he has got nothing with the suit property.

f. The plaintiff had put up a thatched shed in the suit property for the purpose of gathering usufructs of the said trees. Since the defendant was trying to occupy the thatched shed from 1.3.1985 forcibly and also causing disturbances to the possession and enjoyment of the plaintiff, he was constrained to file a suit originally for permanent injunction.

g. As the defendant had denied the title of the plaintiff in his written statement, the plaint happened to be amended and paragraph 8(a) was inserted and in consequence thereof, the plaint prayer was also amended by the inclusion of paragraph (a)(i).

i. As it is seen from the plaint, the plaintiff has sought the following reliefs:-

aa. Restraining the defendant, his men and agents from in any manner interfering with the plaintiff's peaceful possession and enjoyment of the suit property by way of permanent injunction.

a(i) If for any reason the court comes to the conclusion that the plaintiff is not in possession of the suit property, the plaintiff prays alternatively for recovery of possession of the suit property with future profits from the defendant from the date of plaint till date of delivery of possession and also for costs.

6. The defendant has contested the suit by filing his written statement, wherein, he has vehemently denied the title of the plaintiff.

7. He has also contended that he had been in possession and enjoyment of the suit property for the past 15 years and he had been residing therein along with his family members by putting up a thatched shed.

8. As the defendant had been in possession and enjoyment of the suit property for more than the statutory period, he has prescribed title over the suit property by way of adverse possession.

9. The suit property has not been properly described in the plaint. In his additional written statement, he has contended that since he has been in possession and enjoyment of the suit property, he is entitled to the benefits of Section 3 of the Tamilnadu occupants of Kidiyiruppu (Confirment of ownership) Act 1971 as the defendant is an agricultural cooly.

10. As the defendant becomes the owner of the suit property, the plaintiff is not entitled to recovery of