The main legal point established in the judgment is that possession as a tenant does not amount to adverse possession, and the validity of notices issued under Section 106 of the Transfer of Property Act.

R. Tharani, J.

Heard Mr.R.Vijayakumar, learned counsel appearing for the appellants and Mr.K.Balasundharam, learned counsel appearing for the respondent.

2. This appeal is filed to set aside the Judgment and Decree dated 30.08.2013 passed in A.S.No.15 of 2011 on the file of the Sub Court, Sivagangai confirming the Judgment and Decree dated 26.11.2010 passed in O.S.No.170 of 2005 on the file of the District Munsif Cum Judicial Magistrate Court, Thiruppathur.

3. The appellants herein are the defendants and the respondent herein is the plaintiff in the suit. The respondent herein has filed a suit in O.S.No.170 of 2005 against the appellants herein to evict the first appellant from the suit first schedule property and to evict the second appellant from the suit second schedule property and claiming Rs. 7,200/- (Rupees Seven Thousand and Two Hundred only) as compensation from each of the appellants. After the trial, the learned District Munsif, Thiruppathur decreed the suit. The appellants filed an appeal before the Sub Court, Sivagangai in A.S.No.15 of 2011 and the appeal was also dismissed by the Sub Court, Sivagangai confirming the order passed by the trial Court. The appellants filed this second appeal against the order passed by the first appellate Court.

4. From the records, it is seen that there are so many litigations between the appellants and the respondent. The word 'plaintiff' hereafter will denote the plaintiff in O.S.No.170 of 2005 and the word 'defendants' will denote the defendants in O.S.No.170 of 2005. The case of the plaintiff/respondent herein is that the plaintiff purchased the suit property from one Ramanathan Chettiyar on 11.06.1997. At the time of purchase, the first defendant was in possession of the first item of the suit property and he was running a cycle shop and second item was in possession of the second defendant who was running a tea shop. When the plaintiff asked the defendants to vacate the premises, they prayed time for shifting to some other premises. Then the plaintiff filed a suit against the defendants in O.S.No.66 of 1999 and the suit was dismissed as the plaintiff failed to give notice to the defendant to vacate the premises. Later the plaintiff sent a notice dated 03.12.2004 under Section 106 of Transfer of Property Act. Then, the defendant filed the suit against the plaintiff in O.S.Nos.42 of 1997 and 43 of 1997 seeking a prayer of injunction. Both the suits were dismissed on 31.03.1999. Afterwards, the plaintiff filed R.C.O.P.Nos.1 of 1998 and 2 of 1998 against the defendants. The suit property is not within territorial jurisdiction of the Rent Controller. This R.C.O.Ps are dismissed. In the R.C.O.Ps., the defendants have accepted that they are tenants but in the suit they are demanding the property by way of adverse possession. As the defendants are not evicting premises and they are not even paying the rent, the plaintiff filed a suit in O.S.No.170 of 2005 for recovery of possession and for arrears of rent.

5. The case of the defendants/appellants herein is that the property originally belonged to one Ramanathan Chettiyar, Periyanan Chettiyar and Sathapa Chettiyar who are the sons of Vadukanatha Chettiyar. The defendants entered into tenancy agreement with Vadukanatha Chettiyar for a rent of Rs. 30/- (Rupees Thirty only) per month. They have been paying Rs. 45/- (Rupees Forty Five only) per month to the legal heirs of Vadukanatha Chettiyar. With the permission of legal heirs of Vadukanatha Chettiyar, each of the defendants spent Rs. 50,000/- (Rupees Fifty Thousand only) for renovating the premises and they are in possession. The legal heirs of Vadukanatha Chettiyar aggred to sell the property to the defendants and Rs. 50,000/- (Rupees Fifty Thousand only) spent by defendants was treated as an advance. There was an oral agreement. Afterwards, the plaintiff created forged documents and the plaintiff is trying to vacate the defendants. The defendants filed O.S.Nos.42 and 43 of 1997 for