The plaintiff, who last the legal battle before both the first appellate Court, has come forward with this Second Appeal challenging the Judgement and Decree dated 29.04.2002, passed in A.S.No.90 of 2000, on the file of I Additional Subordinate Judge, Nagercoil, by reversing the Judgment and Decree dated 14.09.1998 passed in O.S.No.889 of 1985, on the file of the Principal District Munsif, Nagercoil.

2. Heard the learned counsel for the appellants and the learned Counsel for the second respondent and perused the materials available on record.

3. The appellants as plaintiffs filed a suit for declaration of title and recovery of possession by stating that the plaintiffs' mother Chinnammal is the owner of the property. She obtained the property under a gift deed dated 10th Karthikai 1118 M.E. (1942). After the gift deed, the various parties entered into an oral partition and specific partition was allotted to the plaintiffs' mother and mutation has been effected in favour of Chinnammal. She was allotted two plots and was paying land tax. The first defendant is a close relative of this Chinnammal. On 25.09.1949, Chinnammal received a sum of Rs.1,000/- from the first defendant and allowed him to cultivate the land. Chinnammal was all along paying the kist. She died on 16.01.1985 leaving behind the plaintiffs as her legal heirs. When the plaintiffs demanded the first defendant to surrender the possession of the property on receipt of Rs.1,000/-, the first defendant agreed to receive the amount and to surrender on taking the yield of Kumbom crop. But he has not handed over the possession. After issuance of notice, the plaintiffs have filed the suit for declaration of title and recovery of possession and also for mesne profits for use and occupation.

4. Resisting the same, the first defendant filed a written statement in which it was stated that Chinnammal has originally sold the property in favour of this defendant on 24.04.1950, after receiving Rs.1,500/-. Since the parties are close relatives, no sale deed was obtained. From 24.04.1950 onwards, the defendant and his brother K.Rangaswamy Nadar are enjoying the property as the owners. They paid kists. Patta has has been changed in their name. The defendant is enjoying one plot 3 marakkal and his brother K.Rangaswamy Nadar is enjoying another plot 1 marakkal. The plaintiffs have no right over the property. The suit is bared by limitation. They prescribed title by adverse possession for open, hostile, continuous uninterrupted possession more than statutory period from 1950 onwards. Hence, he prayed for dismissal of the suit.

5. The eighth defendant has filed a written statement by stating that he is the bonafide purchaser of 10 cents of land out of 15 cents situated in resurvey number 877/17. He is in possession and enjoyment of the same under a sale deed dated 26.10.194. He had paid kist. Further he would submit that his predecessor in title has purchased the same under the oral sale on 24.04.1950 and from that date onwards, they are in possession and enjoyment. So, they have prescribed title by adverse possession.

6. The trial Court, after considering the averments both in the plaint and written statement and the arguments of both sides, has framed the necessary issues and decreed the suit. Against which, the defendants have preferred an appeal and in that appeal, the appeal was allowed by stating that the permissive possession was not proved and per contra, the respondents have proved that they have prescribed title by adverse possession, since the oral sale is invalid. Against which, the present Second Appeal has been filed by the plaintiffs.

7. At the time of admission of the Second Appeal, the following Substantial Questions of Law have been framed:

“(1) Whether the finding of the lower appellate Court that the plaintiffs have no subsisting interest in the suit property