The validity of a sale deed requires proof that it was acted upon, and claims of adverse possession must be substantiated by conclusive evidence of possession and intent to exclude others.

COMMON JUDGMENT

These three second appeals, having arisen out of a common judgment, have been heard together and disposed of by this common judgment.

2. O.S.No.236 of 1985 came to be filed seeking for the following reliefs:

“To declare the plaintiffs and the fourth defendant are entitled to the suit property and the title to the same with them.

To grant permanent injunction restraining them in any way interfering with the plaintiffs possession and direct the defendants 1 to 3 to pay the Court and grant such other relief or reliefs.”

3. O.S.No.304 of 1985 came to be filed seeking for the following reliefs:

“To restrain the defendants and their men in any way interfering with the peaceful possession and enjoyment of the suit property by the plaintiffs by means of permanent injunction.

Awarding costs of the suit”

4. O.S.No.305 of 1985 came to be filed seeking for the following reliefs:

“To grant permanent injunction restraining the defendants and their men from unlawful trespassing upon the suit property or otherwise interference with the plaintiffs possession of the suit property.

Awarding costs of the suit”

5. The lead case is OS.No.236 of 1985 on the file of the Subordinate Court at Sankari. Originally, it was presented as O.S.No.564 of 1983 before the Subordinate Court at Salem. Subsequently, another suit was presented in O.S.No.643 of 1983, on the file of the District Munsif Court at Tiruchengode. Thereafter, it was transferred to the file of Sub Court at Salem and renumbered as O.S.No.572 of 1984. Yet again, it was transferred to the file of the Sub Court, Sankari and renumbered as O.S.No.304 of 1985. This was a suit for permanent injunction filed by the plaintiffs in O.S.No.236 of 1985 against their alleged lessee. It sought to restrain the defendant from interfering with the plaintiff's peaceful possession and enjoyment of the suit properties. Another suit had been filed in O.S.No.683 of 1983 on the file of the District Munsif Court at Tiruchengode. This was a suit for permanent injunction restraining the defendants from unlawfully trespassing upon the suit property or otherwise interfere with the possession of the property by the plaintiff. This suit too, was subsequently transferred to the Sub Court, Salem and numbered as O.S.No.574 of 1984. Thereafter, it was yet again, transferred to the file of the Subordinate Court at Sankari and numbered as O.S.No.305 of 1985. The plaintiff in the last suit is the first defendant in O.S.No.236 of 1985.

6. The learned Subordinate Judge, Sankari tried the three suits together. In and by way of a judgment dated 11.04.1986, he dismissed O.S.No.236 of 1985 and O.S.No.304 of 1985, and decreed the suit in O.S.No.305 of 1985. The plaintiffs, being aggrieved by the said judgment and decree, preferred three appeals to the learned District Judge at Salem. These appeals were received as A.S.No.88 of 1986, A.S.No.89 of 1986 and A.S.No.90 of 1986. The learned I Additional District Judge, in and by way of a judgment dated 29.07.1988, allowed all the appeals. Consequently, he decreed O.S.No.236 of 1985 and O.S.No.304 of 1985 as prayed for with costs. He dismissed O.S.No.305 of 1985 with costs.

7. Aggrieved by the reversal of the decrees, three second appeals were presented before this Court in S.A.Nos.1293 to 1295 of 1988.

8. The Hon'ble Mr.Justice T.N.Vallinayagam set aside the judgment of the lower appellate court and restored the judgment of the trial court by allowing the second appeals on 18.02.1997. The respo