IMPORTANT POINT
The court affirmed that the state can claim adverse possession, emphasizing the necessity for plaintiffs to prove their title and possession to succeed in such suits.

JUDGMENT :

S. SOUNTHAR, J.

Prayer: Second Appeal is filed under Section 100 of the Code of Civil Procedure against the judgment and decree, dated 25.06.1998, passed in A.S. No. 142 of 1996 on the file of Principal Sub-Court, Madurai, confirming the judgment and decree, dated 30.04.1996, passed in O.S. No. 295 of 1995 on the file of District Munsif Court, Melur.

1. The plaintiffs in the suit are the appellants. The suit was filed for declaration of title and injunction. The suit was dismissed by the trial Court and the findings of the trial Court were affirmed by the first appellate Court. Aggrieved by the concurrent findings, the plaintiffs have come by way of this Second Appeal.

2. According to the appellants/plaintiffs, the suit property was their ancestral property and they had been in possession and enjoyment of the same. It was further claimed by the plaintiffs that there was a reservoir called Periya Aruvi Reservoir on the western side of the suit property under the control of the defendants. The defendants gave out a threat from March,1995, by claiming right over the suit property and attempted to lease out the usufructs of the coconut trees standing in the suit property to third parties. Hence, the plaintiffs were constrained to file a suit for declaration of title and injunction.

3. The defendants filed a written statement and denied the right as well as the possession of the plaintiffs over the suit property. It was alleged by the defendants that the suit property with Survey No. 202/4A1 had been in possession and enjoyment of Public Works Department since 1965. It was also claimed that an irrigation sluice and surplus channel masonry works were constructed in the suit property in the year 1965 itself and the suit property was claimed to be part and parcel of Periya Aruvi Reservoir of Public Works Department. It was also claimed that after the construction of irrigation project in the year 1965, coconut trees were planted in the suit survey number and they started yielding fruits from the year 1983. Therefore, the defendants had been leasing out the usufructs to third parties from the year 1983, by conducting public auction. Thus, the suit property had been in possession and enjoyment of the defendants – Department from the year 1965 and hence the Department prescribed its title by way of adverse possession. On these pleadings, the defendants sought for dismissal of the suit.

4. Before the trial Court, the first plaintiff was examined as PW-1 and 4 documents were marked on the side of the plaintiffs as Exs.A-1 to A-4. On behalf of the defendants, an Officer of the Department was examined as DW-1 and an employee of the irrigation project was examined as DW-2. On behalf of the defendants, 4 documents were marked as Exs.B-1 to B-4.

5. The trial Court, on appreciation of oral and documentary evidence available on record, came to the conclusion that the defendant Department had been in effective possession and enjoyment of the suit property from the year 1965 and hence they perfected title by adverse possession. As a necessary consequence, the suit was dismissed. Aggrieved by the same, the plaintiffs preferred an appeal in A.S.No. 142 of 1996 on the file of Principal Sub-Court, Madurai. The first appellate Court affirmed the findings of the trial Court and dismissed the appeal. Aggrieved by the concurrent findings, the plaintiffs have come by way of this Second Appeal.

6. At the time of admission, this Court formulated the following substantial questions of law, by an order, dated 30.01.2003:

(1) Whether the Court can give finding of adverse possession without framing issues?

(2) Whether the Courts below can uphold the contention of the defendants plea of adverse possession when they specifically took a stand that suit properties belonged to them?

7. Pending Second Appeal, the appellants also filed two petitions in M.P. (MD) No. 1 of 2012 and C.M.P. (MD) No. 14369 of 2023 under Order 41 Rule 27 of the Code of Civil Procedure to rais