The plea of adverse possession must be specifically pleaded and proved with cogent evidence in a full-fledged trial, and the rejection of the plaint petition must be based on the averments in the plaint and the documents filed along with the plaint.

JUDGMENT

(Prayer: Civil Revision Petition filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, praying to set aside the order dated 24.02.2015 passed in I.A.No.352 of 2011 in O.S.No.234 of 2010 on the file of the District Munsif, Chengalpattu.)

1. Aggrieved by an order, dismissing the petition to reject the plaint, defendants 15 to 17 in the main suit have come up with this revision.

2. The respondents herein filed a suit in O.S.No.234 of 2010 on the file of the learned District Munsif, Chengalpattu, against the petitioners and 14 others (D1 to D14 under whom the petitioners claim title) seeking a declaration that the sale deed dated 22.02.2002 executed by defendants 1 to 14 infavour of late Bheema Rao (husband of first petitioner and father of petitioners 2 and 3) is null void and also for permanent injunction restraining the petitioners (D15 to D17) from anyway encumbering the suit property. The revision petitioners who were arrayed as D15 to D17 have filed a petition to reject the plaint in I.A.No.352 of 2011 and the same was dismissed by the trial Court. Aggrieved by the same, the present Civil Revision Petition is filed.

3. According to the plaintiffs, they are all legal representatives of one Nagarathina Mudaliar, who purchased the suit property under a registered sale deed dated 15.05.1965. Since his possession was interfered with one Kuppusamy, he was constrained to file a suit seeking declaration and recovery of possession in O.S.No.441 of 1965 on the file of the learned District Munsif, Chengalpattu and the same was decreed. The defendant therein/ Kuppusamy filed an appeal in A.S.No.37 of 1970 before the Principal Subordinate Court, Chengalpattu and the First Appellate Court allowed the appeal and remanded the matter to the trial Court for re-trial. The said order of remand was challenged by Nagarathina Mudaliar in A.A.O.No.619 of 1973 before the High Court of Madras and the same was allowed and the matter was remanded to the file of the First Appellate Court. After remand, the First Appellate Court, heard the matter afresh and allowed the appeal and dismissed the suit.

4. In the meantime, Nagarathina Mudaliar died and his legal heirs namely the plaintiffs in O.S.No.234 of 2010 filed second appeal before the High Court in S.A.No.2427 of 1977 and the same was allowed. The matter was again remanded back to the file of the lower Appellate Court for fresh disposal. Thus, A.S.No.37 of 1982 was taken up by First Appellate Court afresh and ultimately the first appeal was dismissed confirming the judgment and decree of the Trial Court. The first Appellate Court held that Nagarathina Mudaliar was the owner of the suit property and the plea of adverse possession of the defendant therein was negatived. Aggrieved by the said judgment, Kuppusamy filed second appeal with a petition for condonation of delay in CMP.No.9489 of 1983 and the same was allowed on 29.06.1984 on condition that the appellant (Kuppusamy) should pay a sum of Rs.100/- on or before 20.07.1984 and the said order was not complied and hence condonation of delay petition was dismissed and consequently second appeal was rejected at the S.R. stage. Thus, the decree granted by the trial Court declaring title of Nagarathina Mudaliar and for recovery of possession stood confirmed. The plaintiffs further pleaded in the plaint that the legal heirs of Kuppusamy namely the defendants 1 to 14 in O.S.No.234 of 2010 executed a sale deed dated 22.02.2002 in favour of one late Beema Rao (husband of 15th defendant and father of defendants 16 and 17) conveying the suit property to him. The plaintiffs after acquiring the knowledge of the said sale issued a notice dated 03.05.2010 to all the defendants. The notices were returned unserved and hence the plaintiffs were constrained to file the above suit seeking declaration that the sale deed executed by legal heirs of Kuppusamy is null and void and for injunction restraining them from alienating or encumbering the suit property further.

5.