The legal principle established is that a person claiming adverse possession must clearly plead and establish all facts necessary to prove adverse possession, and inconsistent pleadings are not permissible.

JUDGMENT

(Prayer: Second Appeal is filed under Section 100 of Code of Civil Procedure, by setting aside the judgment and decree in A.S.No.4 of 2018 on the file of the Principal District Judge, Dindigul dated 20.08.2019 and O.S. No.418 of 2011 dated 18.18.2017 on the file of the Additional Subordinate Judge, Dindigul.

Second Appeal is filed under Section 100 of Code of Civil Procedure, by setting aside the judgment and decree in A.S.No.6 of 2018 on the file of the Principal District Judge, Dindigul dated 20.08.2019 and decreed the suit in O.S.No.546 of 2015 dated 18.08.2017 on the file of the Additional Subordinate Judge, Dindigul.)

1. These Second Appeals have been filed challenging the concurrent findings of the courts below. Two suits were filed namely O.S.No.418 of 2011 and O.S.No.546 of 2015 on the file of the Additional Sub Court, Dindigul. O.S.No.418 of 2011 was filed by the respondent in S.A(MD)No. 227 of 2020. O.S.No.546 of 2015 was filed by the appellant in S.A(MD)No. 228 of 2020. Both the suits were filed for declaration. O.S.No.418 of 2011 was filed also for recovery of possession.

2.The appellant in S.A(MD)No.228 of 2020, who is the plaintiff in O.S.No.546 of 2015 filed the suit for declaration and for permanent injunction based on adverse possession in respect of the suit schedule property and has also disputed that the defendant is the owner of the entire extent of the suit schedule property. According to the plaintiff, if at all the respondent is entitled, she is entitled only to an extent of 4 ½ cents and not the entire extent of 14 cents. According to him, the respondent''s father had erroneously and illegally executed a settlement deed for a larger extent of 14 cents though the respondent''s father was entitled only to an extent of 4 ½ cents. A written statement to that effect was also filed by the appellants in S.A(MD)No.227 of 2020, who are the defendants in the suit in O.S.No.418 of 2011 to that effect.

3.However, the respondent in S.A(MD)No.227 of 2020, who is the plaintiff in O.S.No.418 of 2011 had categorically pleaded in her plaint that she is entitled for the entire extent of 14 cents as per the suit schedule property by virtue of settlement deed executed in her favour by her father which is marked as Ex.A.1 in the common judgment and decree passed by the trial court.

4.As both the suits were tried jointly, evidence was recorded in O.S.No.418 of 2011 only.

5.i)The plaintiff in O.S.No.418 of 2011 filed 4 documents which are marked as Ex.A.1 to Ex.A.4 which are as follows:

Ex.A.1: 30.11.1984 – Original Settlement Deed

Ex.A.2: 14.08.2006 – Receipt issued by Batlagudu Panchyat

Ex.A.3: 07.09.2011 – House Tax Receipt for period 2011-2012 with No.2/412

Ex.A.4: House Tax Receipts (3 in numbers for period 20122016 with No.2/412)

5.ii)The defendants in O.S.No.418 of 2011 have filed 7 documents which were marked as Ex.B.1 to Ex.B.7 and they are as follows:

Ex.B.1: EB card S.C.No.101, with two entries 10.02.1999 and 13.08.1999

Ex.B.2: Family Identity Card issued by Social Welfare Department

Ex.B.3: 20.08.1999- Bharat Petroleum Subscription Voucher

Ex.B.4: 08.09.2011 – Receipt issued by Batlagundu Panchayat

Ex.B.5: 14.06.2014 – Bharat Gas Receipt

Ex.B.6: House Tax Receipt D.No.1/58A 20152016 in name of D2

Ex.B. 7: EB Receipts for 2015-2016 in name of D2

5.iii)Two witnesses were examined on the side of the plaintiff in O.S.No.418 of 2011, namely, P.W.1, the plaintiff''s husband and P.W.2 Murugesan. On the side of the defendants in O.S.No.418 of 2011, 3 witnesses were examined namely the first defendant Ramar as D.W.1 and the second defendant Pandiammal as D.W.2 and one Muthu Naidu as D.W.3

6.i)The trial court namely, the Additional Subordinate Court, Dindigul, by its common judgment and decree dated 18.08.2017 in O.S.Nos. 418 of 2011 and 546 of 2015