Honble LAHOTI, J.–The property in suit consists of a piece of land together with building, super-structure and other construction including wells and fencing of the property bearing house and ground No. 9, Padavattamman Koil St. Kondithope, Madras-1, and O.S. No. 6008 - R.S. No. 20 and R.S. No. 20/1 C.C. No. 8 patta No. 461/1954-55 and admeasuring 1817 sft, more particularly described in the Schedule to the plaint dated 19.08.1984.

(2). The facts, which at this stage are no longer in dispute and stand concluded by the findings of fact by the courts below, may briefly be noticed. The property originally belonged to one Chakrapani who purchased the same on 13.6.1921. He executed a sale deed in favour of one Damodaran on 8.5.1923. Damodaran in turn executed a sale deed in favour of Thiruneelkanda Nainar on 17.10.23. Thiruneelakanda executed a settlement deed on 1.5.1950 in favour of his wife Lakshmi and son Longa ganapathi. They executed a sale deed on 3.3.1966 in favour of Mahadevan and his wife Saroja. The plaintiff, appellant herein, purchased the property from them as per sale deed dated 10.3.1980.

(3). The defendant was in occupation of the entire suit property on the date of the present suit.

(4). Prior to the commencement of the present suit, there had been two other rounds of litigation which are very relevant and need to be noted. In the year 1957, the defendant-respondent herein filed Original Suit No. 2512 of 1957 claiming a share in the suit property, alleging himself to be the adopted son of Thiruneelakanda. The suit was dismissed. That litigation achieved a finality on 8.1.1964 when an appeal preferred by the defendant was dismissed by the High Court of Madras.

(5). In the year 1965, one of the predecessors-in-title of the plaintiff (appellant herein) filed a suit for declaration of title and for possession over 240 sft. area (situated on the upper floor of the building standing over the suit property) against the respondent. The suit was numbered as O.S. 1907 of 1965 and after trial decreed on 30.1.1968. The decree was put into execution. Execution Petition No. 2458 of 1975 was pending when the defendant produced before the Executing Court an injunction issued by one of the civil courts restraining execution of the decree. The Executing Court naturally closed the execution proceedings. The order of injunction and details thereof are not available on record. In what terms the Execution Petition was closed and what happened thereafter to such execution proceedings is also not ascertainable from the record. The search for such information need not detain us in deciding the present appeals as it would be taken care of in such independent proceedings as would be indicated during the course of this judgment and also looking at the manner in which these appeals are being disposed of.

(6). On 19.8.1984, the appellant filed the present suit for declaration of title and recovery of possession over the suit property from the defendant. On 7.8.1985, the defendant filed the written statement. Suffice it to note here itself that though the defendant denied the title of the plaintiff over the suit property, there is no plea as to the suit being barred by the principle of res judicata taken in the written statement. The only other plea taken in the written statement is one of adverse possession which is in the following words:

"This defendant has been in continuous, uninterrupted, open possession and enjoyment of the suit property for more than the prescriptive period and has thus perfected his title to the suit property by adverse possession.

This defendant is in occupation of the suit property in his own right. This defendant has been paying the Corporation tax Water and Sewage tax and Urban Land tax for the suit property for all three years for more than the prescriptive period."

(7). The Trial Court and the First Appellate Court decreed the suit.

(8). It appears that during the pendency of the First Appeal, the plaintiff (Appellant her

Click Here to Read the rest of this document