C.V. KARTHIKEYAN, J.

1. The plaintiff in O.S. No. 628 of 1992 on the file of the First Additional District Munsif Court, Erode, is the appellant herein.

2. O.S. No. 628 of 1992 had been filed by the plaintiff, Marayammal against the defendant Veerappan, seeking a Judgment and Decree for declaration that the plaintiff is the absolute owner of the suit property and for permanent injunction restraining the defendant from trespassing into the suit property or interfering with peaceful possession. By Judgment and Decree dated 16.09.1999, the suit was dismissed. The plaintiff then filed A.S. No. 266 of 1999 before the Principal District Court, Erode. By Judgment and Decree dated 03.07.2000, the appeal was also dismissed. Challenging that Judgment, the plaintiff had filed the present Second Appeal. It must be mentioned that pending the suit, the defendant Veerappan died and his legal representatives had been brought on record as second to fourth defendants. They are the second to fourth respondents in the present Second Appeal.

3. The Second Appeal had been admitted on the following substantial question of law:-

"Whether the findings of the Courts below regarding the right of the plaintiff in the suit property are vitiated by perversity?"

O.S. No. 628 of 1992 (I Additional District Munsif Court, Erode):

4. In the plaint, the plaintiff Marayammal claimed that originally the suit vacant site with a dilapidated house belonged to C.M.S. Mohammed Jaffer and his brother C.M.S. Habibulla. The suit property measured 10 ft. x 10 ft. in R.S. No. 203/1 to 5 in Periasemur Village, Erode. It also included a dilapidated house bearing Door No. 329, Sathy Main Road.

5. According to the plaintiff, in 1975 she started a petty shop in front of the suit property. She then removed the walls and the roofing and constructed a Madras Terraced building. She spent Rs. 4,000/- in reconstruction. The owners did not raise any objection. The plaintiff claimed that she has been in possession from 1975 till the date of filing the suit. The panchayat board has assessed house tax in the name of the plaintiff. She had obtained electric and water connection. She claimed to have perfected her title by adverse possession. She further stated that the defendant Veerappan claimed to have purchased the property from C.M.S. Mohammed Jaffer and C.M.S. Habibulla. The defendant requested the plaintiff to vacate the suit property in April 1992. Since the plaintiff refused, he attempted to dispossess the plaintiff on 25.04.1992. The plaintiff resisted. She then filed the suit for declaration of title and permanent injunction to break possession.

6. In the written statement filed by the defendant, he denied the contention of the plaintiff that she started a petty shop in 1975 and reconstructed the house spending Rs. 4,000/-. He denied that the plaintiff had perfected title by adverse possession. He claimed that the plaintiff was not in possession of the suit property. She was in occupation of a portion of road poromboke only. She was not doing any business. He was in possession of the suit property by virtue of a sale agreement dated 17.08.1978 from Mohammed Idayathulla. He had put up a terraced house and thatched house and obtained electricity connection. He had also planted coconut trees. He was running a bakery business. In the year 1985 he leased out orally a portion to the husband of the plaintiff for monthly rent at Rs. 100/-. They were arrears in rent. It was stated that the plaintiff cannot claim adverse possession. It was stated that he had filed an earlier suit in O.S. No. 657 of 1983 where the husband of the plaintiff claimed to be in possession. Injunction was granted in the said suit. The defendant stated that there was no cause of action and stated that the suit should be dismissed.

7. After the legal heirs of the defendant were brought on record, they filed an additional written statement. They also claimed that the defendant had entered into an agreement on 17.08.1