N. Sathish Kumar, J.

The suit is filed for recovery of possession and permanent injunction restraining the defendants from in any way changing the nature and character of the suit property.

2. The brief facts of the case of the plaintiff are as follows:

An extent of 4 ground and 18 sq.ft of land were originally purchased by one P. Chakrapani Reddiar, vide registered sale deed dated 17.3.1966. The said P. Chakrapani Reddiar, who is none other than the father-in-law of the plaintiff, was in possession and enjoyment of the suit property from the date of purchase and also obtained patta in his favour. The suit property consists of two items. Item No.1 consists of 3 grounds and item No.2 consists of 1 ground and 18 sq.ft. The aforesaid Chakrapani Reddiar appointed one Ramasamy as a watchman in the year 1978 and permitted him to stay in the watchman shed, which was constructed in item No.2 of the suit property. The said Chakrapani Reddiar died intestate in the year 1979 leaving behind his only son, Sathyanarayanan, and his wife, C. Shyamalavalli as his legal heirs. The said Sathyanarayanan, also died intestate in the year 2003 leaving behind his wife (the plaintiff herein), his mother, namley, C. Shyamalavalli and three daughters, as his legal heirs.

2.1. The Watchman appointed by Chakrapani Reddiar (father-in-law of the plaintiff), died in the year 2004 and his son Varadan, predeceased him. The first defendant is the daughter-in-law of the deceased Ramasamy and the other defendants are the sons and daughters of the deceased Varadhan through the first defendant.

2.2. According to the plaintiff, the defendants, who were squatting on the suit property, unauthorisedly tried to obtain patta and electricity service connection to the property behind her back. The plaintiff, being one of the co-owner, has filed the present suit to protect the interest of herself and other co-owners.

2.3. It is the case of the plaintiff that the defendants have strenuously made an attempt in the year 2005, to obtain electricity connection in their name and the same was thwarted by the plaintiff. Hence, the plaintiff has no other option but to file a suit for recovery of possession and permanent injunction.

3. The case of the defendants in nutshell is as follows:

Though the father-in-law of the plaintiff, late P. Chakrapani Reddiar, purchased the suit property, he never exercised the right of ownership at any point of time. It is denied by the defendants that the said late P. Chakrapani Reddiar, dug a well and constructed a watchman shed in the suit property. In fact, the father-in-law of the first defendant, namely, Ramasamy, occupied the suit property and put up a shed in the year 1960 and was in possession and enjoyment of the same on his own right since 1960.

3.1. It is the contention of the defendants that the said Ramasamy was working as Watchman at various places and was residing in the suit property along with his family members. The defendants 2 to 6 are born and brought up in the suit property.

3.2. It is the further contention of the defendants that neither Chakrapani Reddiar nor his son C. Sathyanarayanan, who were residing adjacent to the suit property, questioned the possession and occupation of Ramasamy and his family members in the suit property. Therefore, they perfected title by adverse possession. The suit is also bad for non joinder of necessary and proper parties and the court fee paid is also not correct. Hence, the plaintiff is not entitled for the relief as prayed for.

4. On the above pleadings, originally, this Court has framed the following issues for trial on 14.10.2011.

1. Whether the deceased Ramasamy was in permissive occupation of a portion of the suit property as a watchman appointed by P. Chakrapani Reddiar?

2. Whether the defendants have perfected title by adverse possession?

3. Whether the suit for recovery of possession