The review court emphasized that mere registration of documents does not establish title; the plaintiff must provide clear evidence of both title and possession, especially when adverse possession is claimed by defendants.

ORDER :

RMT.TEEKAA RAMAN, J.

This Review Petition has been filed to Review the judgment and decree dated 02.11.2018 made in SA.No.1003 of 2014 on the file of the this Court.

2. The defeated Defendants are the Review Petitioners. For the sake of convenience and clarity, the parties are referred to as per their litigative status before the trial Court as Plaintiff and Defendants.

3. The present review petition arises out of the judgment and decree made in SA.No.1003 of 2014 on the file of the this Court, whereby my brother Justice had reversed the Judgment and Decree dated 25.04.2014 made in A.S.No.38 of 2013 passed by the learned Sub Judge, Thirupattur.

4. The short facts that are necessary for leading to filing of this Review Petition are as under:

4(a). The Suit in O.S.No.83 of 2007 was filed before the learned Principal District Munsif, Thirupattur, for bare injunction by one Rohilant Ebens, the plaintiff herein. The present review petitioners are arrayed as Defendants in the said Suit. From the trial court records, I find that originally there was an IA.No.240 of 2007, wherein the Respondent/Plaintiff had sought for an interim injunction, pending Suit.

4(b). By order dated 21.08.2007, the learned District Munsif, Thirupattur, based upon the document filed by the Plaintiff has come to a conclusion that the Plaintiff is not in possession, on the date of filing of the Suit and accordingly, dismissed IA.No.240 of 2007.

4(c). Aggrieved against the order dated 21.08.2007, in IA.No.240 of 2007, the Plaintiff filed CMA.No.17 of 2007 before the Sub Judge, Thirupattur and the same was dismissed on 19.01.2009 by concurrenting with the finding of the learned District Munsif that the Plaintiff is not in possession on the date of the Plaint, more so, even from 2007 onwards.

4(d). Aggrieved against the said order, it appears that the Plaintiff has come to this Court by way of Civil Revision Petition in CRP(PD)No.2931 of 2009, and the same was dismissed with a direction to the trial Court to dispose of Suit as expeditiously as possible.

4(e). The Respondent/Plaintiff filed the Suit in O.S.No.83 of 2007 for permanent injunction and the review petitioners/Defendants have filed written statement, disputing the title and possession of the Plaintiff. The written statement has been filed, wherein this Court finds that plea of adverse of possession has also been taken. They also raised other pleas in the written statement.

4(f). It is a specific case of the Defendants in their pleadings and in the written statement that the Suit property is under their absolute possession and enjoyment of the Defendants and the plaintiff also aware of their long and continuous possession and enjoyment of the suit property, from the time of their forefathers. Thereafter, by partition it was allotted to Defendants 1 to 4 and till date, they are in possession uninterruptedly and they also disputed the alleged power of attorney from persons from Chennai and Kolkatta.

4(g). According to the Defendants the plaintiff has not derived any title and even the vendors of the Plaintiff were not in possession of the property and the sale deed in favour of the vendors of the plaintiff by the Father of the Defendants are only sham and nominal. Despite the sale, which is sham and nominal, they are in possession of the property and Plaintiff is running a school, adjacent to the very same area, who had purchased the land for th