Purchase pendente lite hit by lis pendens; adverse possession not proved post-final decree.

JUDGMENT

The unsuccessful defendant is the appellant. The respondents herein filed a suit seeking recovery of possession. The suit was decreed by the trial court. The appeal filed by the appellant was also dismissed. Challenging the concurrent findings against him, he has come before this Court by way of second appeal.

2. According to the respondents/plaintiffs, the suit property originally belonged to his father Puttan. After his death, the first plaintiff and his brother Chandan are in joint possession of the suit property. The said Chandan is no more and his legal representatives were added as respondents 2 to 8. It is also stated by the plaintiffs that one Murugan, vendor of the appellant/defendant, attempted to interfere with the possession of the first plaintiff and his brother Chandan in the year 1995. Hence, the first plaintiff and his brother Chandan filed a suit in O.S. No. 435 of 1995 on the file of District Munsif Court, Palacode seeking declaration of their title and permanent injunction against him. The said suit was decreed on 26.02.2001. The unsuccessful defendant in the said suit namely Murugan filed first appeal in A.S.No.40 of 2001 on the file of Subordinate Court, Dharmapuri and the same was dismissed on 31.10.2011. Therefore, the findings rendered in the above mentioned suit had attained finality. Pending above mentioned suit, the above said Murugan sold the property in favour of present defendant Jeyaraman. In the earlier suit O.S.No.435 of 1995, the present defendant Jeyaraman was also examined as DW5. The suit was decreed by holding sale and revenue documents in the name of Jeyaraman were invalid and ultimately, the suit was decreed by declaring title of the plaintiffs and permanent injunction was also granted.

3. It is also pleaded by the plaintiffs that taking advantage of absence of first plaintiff and his brother Chandan in the locality, the defendant trespassed into the suit property on 23.12.2010 and got orders for installation of electricity service connection in a Well in the suit property by relying on the sale deed in his favour, which was declared invalid in the earlier suit. Therefore, the plaintiffs were constrained to file a present suit seeking recovery of possession.

4. The appellant/defendant filed a written statement and denied the right of the plaintiffs over the suit property. It was his case that he purchased the suit property from above said Murugan under registered sale deed without the knowledge of the litigation and hence, he was the absolute owner of the suit property. It was also stated that even assuming plaintiffs proved their title over the suit property, the defendant has been in possession and enjoyment of the suit property from the date of sale i.e., 02.06.1995. Therefore, he perfected his title by way of adverse possession.

5. Before the trial court, sixth plaintiff was examined as PW1 and one Anbalagan was examined as PW2. On behalf of the plaintiffs, 11 documents were marked as Ex.A1 to Ex.A11. The defendant was examined as DW1 and yet another witness was examined as DW2. On behalf of the defendants, 16 documents were marked as Ex.B1 to Ex.B16. Four documents were also marked as Ex.X1 to Ex.X4 through DW2.

6. The trial court, on appreciation of evidence available on record, came to the conclusion that plaintiffs established their title and hence, they are entitled to recovery of possession. Aggreived by the judgment and decree passed by the trial court, the defendant filed first appeal in AS.No.46 of 2024 on the file of Additional District Court, Dharmapuri and the same was dismissed by confirming the findings of the trial court. Aggrieved by the concurrent