The judgment establishes that prior withdrawal of suits without permission bars subsequent claims and that adverse possession can extinguish tenant rights contrary to inherited claims.

J U D G M E N T

---------------------

This litigation which has a chequered career to its credit started in the year 1966 though dispute started even much before that. This is the second time this case is coming up before this Court in the Second Appeal though parties had the privilege of coming to this Court on other occasions also challenging or supporting certain interlocutory orders passed by the trial court. The suit was originally filed by plaintiff Nos.1 to 6 with the present plaintiff as defendant No.7 and the contesting defendant as defendant No.8 for partition and separate possession. They claimed that the suit property belonged in jenm to Moorchilot tarwad under which Puthukkudi Bavachi obtained a right of tenancy. He executed Ext.A1, kanom kuzhikanom assignment deed dated 2.9.1899 in favour of his son, Puthukkudi Ammad who had no male issues and died intestate. His tenancy right devolved on his legal heirs - daughter, Mariyam getting 6/9 shares brother, Avulla Haji getting 2/9 shares and the remaining 1/9 share going to his sister, Mariyam. Plaintiff Nos.1 to 6 and defendant Nos.1 to 6 are legal representatives of sister, Mariyam. Thus, 1/9 share belonged to plaintiff Nos.1 to 6 and defendant Nos.1 to 6. It is their further case that daughter, Mariyam and brother, Avulla Haji (of Puthukkudi Ammad) assigned their 8/9 shares to defendant No.7 (plaintiff) as per Ext.B2, assignment deed dated 12.8.1965 while defendant Nos.1 and 2 assigned their fractional interest in the 1/9 share to defendant No.8. Plaintiff Nos.1 to 6 sought partition and separate possession of their fractional interest in the 1/9 share claiming that they along with other co-owners (defendant Nos.1 to 8) are in joint possession and enjoyment of the suit property. Defendant No.8 contended that Puthukkudi Bavachi or his son, Puthukkudi Ammad had no right, title, interest or possession over the suit property and hence legal heirs of Puthukkudi Ammad have not acquired any right by inheritance. He claimed that Mariyam, sister of Puthukkudi Ammad predeceased the latter and hence defendant Nos.11 to 18 (original plaintiff Nos.1 to 6) and defendant Nos.1 to 6 could acquire no right in the suit property. It is also contended that at the time of death of Puthukkudi Ammad his second wife, Combi Mariyam was alive, later she also died and without her legal heirs on the party array the suit is liable to be dismissed for non-joinder of necessary parties. Defendant No.8 claimed that the suit property (which according to him is only about 52 cents) originally belonged to Vadakkedath Ammad as per a registered document dated 11.2.1925. Defendant No.1 and her husband, the late Puthukkudi Anthruman (who is the son of Mariyam, sister of Puthukkudi Ammad) got the property on oral lease from the said Vadakkedath Ammad on Thulam 15, 1118 M.E. for a rent of Rs.2/- per month. Vadakkedath Ammad assigned his right to the said Puthukkudi Anthruman as per a registered document dated 03.03.1952. While defendant No.1 and her husband, Puthukkudi Anthruman were in possession and enjoyment of the property, Puthukkudi Anthruman created lease of the same in favour of defendant No.1 (his wife) and defendant No.2, their son as per a registered lease deed dated 20.4.1965 for a period of 12 years fixing rent of Rs.50/- per year. On the death of Puthukkudi Anthruman his right over the property devolved on defendant Nos.1 and 2. Defendant Nos.1 and 2 assigned their right in the suit property to defendant No.8 as per registered document dated 5.6.1965. Thus the suit properly absolutely belong to and is in the possession of defendant No.8. He purchased jenm right over the property from the Land Tribunal as per purchase certificate dated 1826 of 1978. Defendant No.8 contended that defendant No.7 (plaintiff) had earlier filed O.S. No.660 of 1966 for partition of the very same property with himself and others on the party array and that suit was withdrawn without getting leave of the court to file a