1. The Second Appeal in S.A.(MD)No.24 of 2011 arises against the judgment and decree passed in A.S.No.4 of 2009, on the file of the Principal Subordinate Court, Pudukkottai reversing the judgment and decree passed in the counter claim in O.S.No.106 of 2006, on the file of the Subordinate Court, Pudukkottai. The Second Appeal in S.A.(MD)No.352 of 2012 arises against the judgment and decree passed in A.S.No.3 of 2009, on the file of the Principal Subordinate Court, Pudukkottai reversing the judgment and decree passed in O.S.No.106 of 2006, on the file of the Subordinate Court, Pudukkottai. The defendant in the suit has filed the above Second Appeals.

2. The plaintiffs filed the suit in O.S.106 of 2006 for permanent injunction. The defendant fled the counter claim in O.S.No.106 of 2006 for declaration, permanent injunction and recovery of possession. Since both the Second Appeals arise against one suit, both the Second Appeals are disposed of by this common judgment.

3. The brief case of the plaintiffs is as follows:

The suit property measuring an extent of 8 cents out of total extent of 16 cents originally belonged to one S.K.R. Karuppan Chettiar ancestrally. By a deed of sale dated 05.07.1973, the minors Alagu and Manoharan represented by their father Saravanan, purchased the said 8 cents of land. Thereafter by a deed of sale dated 24.01.1994, the said Alagu and Manoharan sold an extent 4 cents on the northern side to the second plaintiff. The possession was handed over to the plaintiffs on the date of sale itself. The plaintiffs have been in possession and enjoyment of the property since the date of purchase. They also obtained electricity connection and put up a thatched house and Door number was assigned as 59/1. The plaintiffs are in possession and enjoyment of the property for well over the statutory period and they have prescribed title by adverse possession. Since the defendant tried to dispossess the plaintiffs, the plaintiffs filed the suit.

4. The brief case of the defendant is as follows:

According to the defendant, the sale deeds mentioned in the plaint are not pertaining to the suit property. The suit property and the entire extent of 16 cents belonged to the defendant and his ancestors. Patta was issued in favour of the defendant's father Chella Konar @ Adaikala Konar. He constructed a house on the northern side and using the land on southern side as cattle shed. After the death of his grand father, the defendant inherited the property. The plaintiff has no right in respect of the suit property. The plaintiffs' vendor also did not have any title over the suit property. The defendant is in possession and enjoyment of the suit property and the plaintiffs are not in possession and enjoyment of the property. The plaintiffs have no title over the suit property. The plaintiffs are trying to encroach the suit property. In these circumstances, the defendant prayed for dismissal of the suit and to decree the counter claim filed by him.

5. Before the trial Court, on the side of the plaintiffs four witnesses were examined and 15 documents viz., Exs.A.1 to A.15 were marked and on the side of the defendant, three witnesses were examined and 12 documents viz., Exs.B.1 to B.12 were marked and the Advocate Commissioner's report and plan were marked as Exs.C.1 and C.2. The trial Court, after taking into consideration the oral and documentary evidences let in by the parties, dismissed the suit and decreed the counter claim. Aggrieved over the dismissal of the suit in O.S.No.106 of 2006, the plaintiffs filed an appeal in A.S.No.3 of 2009 and also filed another appeal in A.S.No.4 of 2009 as against the decree passed in the counter claim. The lower Appellate Court set aside the judgment and decree passed by the trial Court and allowed both the appeals. Aggrieved over the judgment and decree of the lower Appellate Court, the defendant has filed the above Second Appeals.

6. Heard Mr. Isacc Mohanlal, learned Senior Counsel appearing f