He denied the allegation that he was in occupation of 60 cents of land only from the year 1981 under permission from the plaintiffs or that he was engaged to keep a watch over the fruit bearing trees in suit schedule item 1 land.
The plaint averments in the suit filed in the year 1987, in brief, are as follows The second plaintiff purchased the suit properties under a registered sale deed on 25.11.1977 executed by one Ratnavelu PW 2, who had earlier purchased the suit properties from Adikesavalu under sale deed dated 25.1.1972.
The second appellant claims to be the owner of the suit properties that is two portions of survey No.209/6 of Kadapakkam village measuring 1.75 acres and 60 cents described as items 1 and 2 respectively in the plaint Schedule.
The first appellate companyrt has also held that the defendant was in open peaceful and uninterrupted possession of the suit schedule item number2 and paid the house taxes from 1972 73, in respect of the house companystructed by him.
He alleged that he companystructed the thatched hut and planted trees in the 60 cents land and his open and uninterrupted possession of the said portion from 1970 was number objected to either by plaintiff or anyone else claiming to be the owner and that the second plaintiff was also in similar possession of the adjoining portion that is remaining portion of Survey No.209/6 suit schedule item 1 land .
In or about in March 1981, the second plaintiffs brother namely Chandran Naicker defendant sought her permission to reside in a portion of her property and offered his services to look after the fruit bearing trees therein.
The defendant companytended in his written statement that he had occupied the 60 cents of land suit schedule item number2 land in the year 1970 and has been in possession and enjoyment thereof openly, peacefully and companytinuously and had perfected his title by adverse possession.
The second appellant permitted the defendant to put up at his own companyt, a thatched hut in a portion of her land the portion described as item 2 in the plaint Schedule and permitted him to reside there free of rent, in companysideration of his assurance of service by looking after the fruit bearing trees in the suit schedule item 1 property.
He did number deny the ownership or possession of second plaintiff in respect of suit schedule item number1 land measuring 1 acre 75 cents.
He claimed that he has been paying taxes in respect of suit schedule item 2 property and that he was recorded as the owner of the said land in the Revenue records.
This appeal by special leave is by the plaintiffs in a suit for declaration of title, possession, permanent injunction, mandatory injunction and mesne profits.
He failed to do so and set up a claim that he was the owner of the suit schedule item 2 land measuring 60 cents.
The said findings of fact were number disturbed by the High Court.
Feeling aggrieved, the plaintiffs have filed this appeal by special leave.
The second plaintiff was in possession of the suit lands even prior to the sale in her favour and she had perfected her title by adverse possession also.
The documents exhibited by defendant companysisted of house tax receipts.
The trial companyrt framed appropriate issues regarding title, adverse possession, possession, permanent injunction, mesne profits.
This necessitated filing of the suit for declaration of title, possession, injunction and mesne profits.
The second appeal filed by the plaintiffs was dismissed by the High Court on 12.10.2001 and the decision of the first appellate companyrt was companyfirmed.
The first appellate companyrt allowed the appeal by the defendant on 28.6.1991, reversed the judgment of the trial companyrt and dismissed the suit.
After appreciating the evidence, the trial companyrt decreed the suit on 16.7.1990.
The first appellate companyrt which is the final companyrt of fact has recorded a finding that the defendant is in possession of the suit schedule item number2 land 60 cents ever since 1970 and that plaintiffs have failed to prove that second plaintiff had been in possession of both items of suit schedule earlier or that she had permitted the defendant to occupy a portion of her land suit schedule item number2 in the year 1981.
The documents exhibited by plaintiffs companysisted of title deeds, Jamabandhi, Chitta and Adaugal Extracts and tax receipts.
After a few years, as defendants service was number satisfactory, the plaintiffs called upon the defendant to vacate the thatched hut.
The second plaintiff examined herself as PW1 and examined her vendor Rathnavelu as PW2.
The defendant gave evidence as DW1 and examined one R. Ramachandran as DW2.
The respondent defendant is the brother of the second appellant.
For companyvenience, we will refer to the appellants and respondent by their ranks in the suit, as plaintiffs and defendant.
The first appellant is the husband of second appellant.
Both sides also tendered documentary evidence.
