Adverse possession plea fails when defendant acknowledges title and attempts purchase from owner.

..Respondents/plaintiffs Prayer:This Second Appeal is filed under Section 100 of Code of Civil Procedure praying to set aside the judgment and decree made in AS No.81 of 2017 dated 21.08.2019 by the 1st Additional Subordinate Judge, Cuddalore, reversing the judgment and decree made in OS No.146 of 2001 dated

10.08.2017 by the learned Principal District Munsif, Cuddalore.

For Appellant(s): Mr.A.Veerappa For Respondent(s): R1 & R2 – Died R3 – No appearance

JUDGMENT

This second appeal is filed to set aside the Judgment and Decree made in A.S.No.81 of 2017 dated 21.08.2019 on the file of the learned 1^st Additional Subordinate Judge, Cuddalore, reversing the Judgment and Decree made in O.S.No.146 of 2001, dated 10.08.2017, on the file of the learned Principal District Munsif, Cuddalore.

2. The unsuccessful defendant in the suit is the appellant before this Court. The predecessor-in-title of respondents namely deceased Neelambal, initially filed a suit for injunction. Subsequently, the plaint was amended seeking declaration of title and recovery of possession. The suit was dismissed by the trial Court. Aggrieved by the same, the respondents/plaintiffs who were brought on record as the legal representatives of the deceased sole plaintiff Neelambal, filed an appeal. The Appellate Court reversed the findings of the trial Court and decreed the suit. Aggrieved by the same, the defendant has come before this Court.

3. According to the respondents/plaintiffs, the entire extent of 3 acres

67 cents in the suit survey number originally belonged to one Sankar Chettiar. He purchased the same in a Court auction sale on 26.08.1971 and is said to have taken actual possession of the property through Court process on 06.10.1972.

The plaintiff purchased the property adjacent to the suit property from Sankar Chettiar on 19.01.1983. Thereafter, the present suit property was purchased by the plaintiff from Sankar Chettiar on 15.06.1991. The appellant/defendant, a stranger to the suit property, attempted to trespass into the property. Hence, the suit was initially filed seeking injunction. Subsequently, the prayer was amended seeking declaration of title and recovery of possession, as the defendant disputed both the title as well as the possession of the respondents /

plaintiffs.

4. The suit was mainly resisted by the defendant on the ground that he had been in possession and enjoyment of the suit property for more than 40 years, even prior to the alleged purchase by Sankar Chettiar. The defendant denied the allegation in the plaint that the suit property was purchased by Sankar Chettiar in a Court auction sale and he had taken delivery of the same. It was further stated that Sankar Chettiar filed a suit in O.S.No.102 of 1984 seeking recovery of possession against the present defendant and many other occupants of the larger extent of land in the suit survey number and the said suit was compromised with other occupants. As far as the present defendant is concerned, the said suit was dismissed for non-prosecution. It was also stated that there was an agreement between the defendant and Sankar Chettiar for purchase of the suit property, and that a Sale Deed was executed in favour of the defendant on 27.09.1991 and presented for registration before the Sub-Registrar Office. However, at the request of Sankar Chettiar, the said document was returned without registration. In such circumstances, the defendant filed a suit for specific performance against Sankar Chettiar and the present plaintiff in O.S.No.387 of 199