Ownership of property established through documentary evidence, adverse possession and limitation pleas must be timely and properly raised.

JUDGMENT

(Prayer: Second Appeal is filed under section 100 of the Civil Procedure Code against the judgment and decree dated 16.03.2021 made in A.S.No.38 of 2020 on the file of the learned I Additional Sub Judge of Erode, confirming the judgment and decree dated 14.02.2020 made in O.S.No.29 of 2012 on the file of the learned Principal District Munsif of Erode.)

1. The defendant who has lost before the Courts below is the appellant before this Court.

2. The facts in brief are herein narrated below describing the parties in the same ranking as before the Trial Court.

(i) The plaintiffs had filed a suit seeking to have themselves declared as the absolute owners of the suit schedule property, directing the defendants to deliver vacant possession of the suit property to the plaintiffs and for a permanent injunction restraining the defendants from putting up any new construction.

(ii) It is the case of the plaintiffs that the larger extent of the suit property situate in Nanjai Uthukuli Village belonged to their ancestors. Ultimately, the plaintiffs' father, Ramalinga Gounder, who succeeded to the property, during his life time, had executed a Will dated 23.02.2005 bequeathing the suit property upon the plaintiffs. The said Ramalinga Gounder died on 04.03.2005 and the Will thereupon came into effect. The plaintiffs would submit that the fact that the larger extent of the property belonged to them is evidenced by a Mortgage Deed executed on 25.11.1921 by their great grandfather, Sengottaiya Gounder in favour of Komarappa Gounder in respect of an extent of 9.03 acres in S.F.No.537A on 31.10.1927. Yet another Mortgage Deed was executed by the said Sengottaiya Gounder in favour of Karunthevampalaym Co-operative Society with reference to the very same extent of 9.03 acres in S.F.No.537A. Thereafter, the plaintiffs' father, Ramalinga Gounder had executed a registered Mortgage Deed in favour of one Ramasamy Gounder on 21.06.1962 in respect of an undivided half share in Old S.F.No.537/A. The remaining share belonged to the said Ramalinga Gounder's brother, Muthusamy Gounder.

(iii) It is the case of the plaintiffs that their father and his brother, Muthusamy Gounder had orally divided the property and had sold portions of the property to several persons. On the west of the suit property, one S.A.Loganathan had purchased an extent of 1.47 acres in R.S.No.508 under a registered Sale Deed dated 28.10.2002. The plaintiffs would submit that the lands were being personally cultivated by their father. While so, 10 years prior to the suit, the plaintiffs' father had permitted the defendants to put up temporary hut in the said property on condition that they would vacate the same as and when requested. The said Ramalinga Gounder thereafter settled in Vellakoil where his wife had inherited the property from her parents. After the death of their father, the plaintiffs wanted to settle in their native village and had decided to construct a house in the said property. In the first week of January 2010, the plaintiffs revoked theirpermission and requested the defendants to vacate and hand over the vacant possession of the suit property. Though the defendants were put on notice, they had however refused to vacate the same. The Nanjai Unthukuli Panchayat Board with the permission of the plaintiffs' father had set up a television room for them, which they had undertaken to demolish the same as and when requested. However, the defendant had not vacated the property and were attempting to set up an independent title. Therefore, the plaintiffs had come forward with the above suit.

3. The written statement of the defendants was to the effect that the property did not belong to Ramalinga Gounder or his predecessor-in-title. The Will and Mortgages were created with sole intent of evicting the defendants from the property. The second defendant had raised a question of valuation, since according to the second defendant the suit property was a house site and not