Legal heirs maintain ownership rights against claims of adverse possession if defendants' assertions conflict with prior admissions regarding property title.

JUDGMENT :

R.N.MANJULA, J.

This Second Appeal has been filed to set aside judgment and decree of the learned Additional District Judge (Fast Track Judge-II), Cuddalore dated 31.03.2011, passed in A.S.No.1 of 2003, dismissing the appeal and confirming the judgment and decree of the learned Subordinate Judge of Panruti in O.S.No.275 of 1996 dated 23.08.2000.

2. Heard Mr.R.Gururaj, learned counsel for the appellants, Mrs.J.Hemalatha Gajapathy, learned Standing Counsel for R1 to R4 and perused the materials available on record.

3. The appellants are the defendants 1 and 2. The plaintiff has filed the suit against the defendants for seeking the reliefs of declaration, recovery of possession and mandatory injunction against the defendants 5 to 8 to disconnect S.C.No.753/Diversion Road along with cost. The Trial Court had decreed the suit as prayed. The First Appeal preferred by the defendants 1 to 4 has also been dismissed by confirming the judgment and decree of the Trial Court. Aggrieved over the same, the defendants 1 and 2 have filed this Second Appeal.

4. The brief facts pleaded in the plaint are as follows:

The plaintiff had claimed title to the suit property as the legal heir of one S.V.Krishnamoorthy who is the owner of the suit properties. The suit property has been allotted to the share of S.V.Krishnamoorthy under a partition deed dated 09.05.1967 entered into between himself and his brothers. S.V.Krishnamoorthy died on 30.09.1970 and thereafter, the plaintiff has inherited the suit property as his legal heir. The plaintiff's husband S.V.Krishnamoorthy and his brothers were having joint family business in the name and style 'S.V.Sons'. After the demise of the plaintiff's husband, the plaintiff was a partner in the business. One of the brother of the plaintiff's husband by name S.V.Jayaraman died and his family got released from the business. With the permission of the plaintiff, the business was run by another brother by name S.V.Ramamoorthy who was the husband of the first defendant.

4.1. The plaintiff permitted the business to be conducted in the suit property. As the second defendant who is the son of S.V.Ramamoorthy had disconnected the service connection in the name of the plaintiff's husband and got a new connection in his name, the plaintiff revoked the permission given to the second defendant to have the business in the suit property. As the defendants caused disturbance to the title of the plaintiff, the plaintiff has filed a suit for seeking the reliefs of declaration, recovery of possession and mandatory injunction.

5. The averments made in the written statement filed by the second defendant are as follows:

The defendants resisted the suit by claiming that the plaintiff had assured to give the suit property to the first defendant's husband S.V.Ramamoorthy as he had performed the last rites to the plaintiff's husband. It is further claimed by the defendants that they are in possession and enjoyment of the suit property by adverse possession. During the pendency of the First Appeal, the defendants have filed an interlocutory application in I.A.No.3 of 2003 to receive additional written statement. The said petition was also heard along with the First Appeal and the same was dismissed. In the additional written statement, the defendants had filed an additional document in order to show that the plaintiff while relinquishing the joint family business, also relinquished her right in the suit property. But the Courts below had not chosen to accept the release deed because it is unregistered. Hence, the relief as claimed by the plaintiff should not be granted.

6. On the basis of the above ple