M. Duraiswamy JUDGMENT
M. Duraiswamy, J.
1. The above appeal arises against the judgment and decree passed in O.S. No. 25 of 1999 on the file of the Additional District Court, Karaikal.
2. The 1st defendant is the 1st appellant, who died during the pendency of the appeal and his legal representatives were brought on record as the appellants 2 & 3. The respondents 1 to 12 are the plaintiffs 1 to 12. The 13th respondent is the 2nd defendant in the suit. The 7th respondent had died during the pendency of the appeal and his legal representatives were brought on record as respondents 14 to 16. The 1st respondent/1st plaintiff also died during the pendency of the appeal and his legal representatives were brought on record as the respondents 17 to 22.
3. The plaintiffs filed the suit in O.S. No. 25 of 1999 for declaration, for recovery of possession and for mesne profits.
4. The brief case of the plaintiffs is as follows:
(i) According to the plaintiffs, the suit property, which is a small part of a large extent of an Estate known as Pana.Ena.Pannai in Keezhakasakudi Village. This Estate was inherited by two brothers P.E. Thaha Maricar and P.E. Mohamed Maricar, until the death of the elder of the two P.E. Thaha Maricar and the property was not divided between them. The property was possessed and managed by the owners jointly and through Pannai Kariasthar.
(ii) On 31.12.1973, under a registered Deed of Partition, the legal representatives of P.E. Thaha Maricar and P.E. Mohamed Maricar partitioned the property and took separate possession of the properties allotted to them in the said Partition Deed. Subsequently, the Nanja lands that fell to the share of P.E. Thaha Maricar were partitioned amongst the daughters and sons. By a Deed of Release dated 13.09.1991, three daughters of P.E. Thaha Maricar released their rights in the property in favour of their brothers, through their mother Zoharan. The suit property was enjoyed by the owners by permitting the Kariasthar and those who work under them to occupy the portions. The licensees were occupying the properties at the pleasure of the owners and rendering some kind of service to the owners.
(iii) The entire extent of suit property is 36 kuzhis, out of which, 11 kuzhis on the Northern side is being occupied by one Ganesa Asari under the lease and license from the plaintiffs. The remaining extent of 25 kuzhis, which is the suit property, was allowed to be used by one Devadass Pillai about 50 years ago. The said Devadass Pillai was working with the Pannai for a large time. The 1st defendant is the relative of Devadass Pillai. After the death of Devadass Pillai, the 1st defendant is occupying the property. The 2nd defendant is related to the 1st defendant. Both the defendants are in occupation of the property for a long period and they had always recognised the title and ownership of the plaintiffs over the suit property. The patta stands in the name of the plaintiffs.
(iv) The 1st defendant filed a suit in O.S. No. 327 of 1995 on the file of the Principal District Munsif Court, Karaikal for recovery of possession against the 2nd defendant. The suit was decreed on 20.12.1996 and the appeal was also dismissed in favour of the 1st defendant. The defendants are not legitimate owners of the property. By notice dated 11.10.1997, the plaintiffs terminated the license and called upon the defendants to vacate the suit property. The 1st defendant sent a reply on 03.11.1998. Devadass Pillai never did any act adverse to the interest of the plaintiffs. In these circumstances, the plaintiffs filed the suit.
5. The brief case of the 1st defendant is as follows:
(i) According to the 1st defendant, he is in long and continuous possession of the suit property and prescribed title by adverse possession. According to the 1st defendant, Devadass Pillai is his father's brother. The mere fact that the said Devadass Pillai was working in the Pannai cannot establish ownership with the plaintiffs. The said Devadass Pillai enjoyed the suit property without any protest by the alleged owners. After the death of Devadass Pillai in the year 1972, the defendant........