JUDGMENT :

(Common Prayer: Second Appeals are filed under Section 100 of Civil Procedure Code, against the judgment and decree in A.S.Nos.21 & 22 of 1999 on the file of the Sub Court, Ambasamudram dated 09.08.2002 reversing the judgment and decree in O.S.Nos.32 of 1994 and 29 of 1993 on the file of the Additional District Munsif Court, Ambasamudram dated 22.01.1999.)

1. S.A.No.1876 of 2002 arises out of O.S.No.32 of 1994 on the file of the Additional District Munsif Court, Ambasamudram for the relief of declaration of title and permanent injunction over the suit lane. The said suit was dismissed by the trial Court. The plaintiffs filed A.S.No.21 of 1999 before the Sub Court, Ambasamudram. The learned Subordinate Judge confirmed the decree with regard to declaration of title, but granted a decree to the effect that the plaintiffs would be entitled to use the second schedule pathway without effecting any alteration. As against the same, the defendant has filed the above second appeal.

2. S.A.No.1877 of 2002 arises out of O.S.No.29 of 1993 on the file of the Additional District Munsif Court, Ambasamudram. The plaintiffs claimed that the second schedule pathway is forming part of first schedule property and claimed declaration of title over the first schedule property and permanent injunction restraining the defendant therein from interfering with the plaintiffs' possession and enjoyment over the second schedule property. The suit was decreed as prayed for by the trial Court. The defendant filed A.S.No.22 of 1999 before the Sub Court, Ambasamudram. The learned Subordinate Judge confirmed the title in favour of the plaintiffs. The First Appellate Court confirmed the decree for declaration of title and permanent injunction, but granted a right for the defendant to use the second schedule pathway without making any alteration. As against the same, the plaintiffs have filed the above second appeal.

3. The plaintiff in O.S.No.29 of 1993 contended that the suit second schedule property is forming part of the first schedule property. The first schedule property was originally owned by one Madakkanu Nadar @ Manonmani Nadar. The said Madakannu Nadar and his son have partitioned the same under Exhibit A1 dated 11.01.1916. In the said partition, the first schedule property and properties to the east of the first schedule property were allotted to the share of one Issac Gnanakannu Nadar. The said Issac Gnanakannu Nadar had executed Exhibit A2 sale deed on 02.04.1930 in favour of his wife Annamuthammal. The said Annamuthammal had gifted her undivided half share in favour of the plaintiff under Exhibit A3 on 31.07.1974. In a family arrangement with his uncle under Exhibit A4 dated 11.02.1980, the suit first schedule property was allotted to the share of the plaintiffs.

4. The plaintiffs further contended that they are in possession and enjoyment of the suit schedule property for more than 100 years and they have acquired title by adverse possession. The plaintiffs further contended that on the western portion of the first schedule property, the second schedule property is located. It is an exclusive lane belonging to the plaintiffs. According to the plaintiffs, there are four windows and sun-shade in the western wall of the plaintiffs. The plaintiffs further contended that the defendant who have properties to the further west of the second schedule property have no right title or possession over the second schedule property. They are attempting to open a doorway into the second schedule property and disturb the possession of the plaintiffs over the second schedule property. Hence, the present suit for declaration that the second schedule property forming part of the first schedule property is the absolute property of the plaintiffs and for consequential permanent injunction that the defendant should not disturb the possession of the plaintiffs over the second schedule property.

5. The defendant filed a written statement contending that he is admittin