1. The Appeal Suit is directed against the judgment and decree passed in O.S. No. 83 of 2013, dated 03.02.2016, on the file of III Additional District Court, Tiruchirappalli.

2. The plaintiffs' case in short is as follows:

(a) The second plaintiff is the father-in-law of the first plaintiff. The first defendant purchased the suit property on 09.10.1996, vide sale deed registered as document No. 7626/1996 at the Sub Registrar Office, Parasla, Kerala State. The first defendant sold the suit property to the first plaintiff on 05.07.1997 and the sale deed was registered at the Sub-Registrar Office, Parasala as per the instructions of the first defendant. The first plaintiff, since the sale deed, has been in possession and enjoyment of the suit property, as absolute owner and the second plaintiff has been managing the suit property on behalf of the first plaintiff, who is living in Chennai.

(b) After the registration of the sale deed, the first plaintiff approached the Sub-Registrar of Manaparai for regularization of sale deed, dated 05.07.1997 after getting the difference of stamp duty, but the same was not accepted. The Sub-Registrar of Parasala issued a memorandum under Sections 64 to 67 of the Registration Act to the District Registrar of Tiruchirappalli with all particulars of stamp duty collected. In respect of the sale deed of the first defendant, the Sub-Registrar collected deficit stamp duty and regularized her purchase. Since the first plaintiff's request was not accepted, he sent letters to the Inspector General of Registration, Chennai to consider his case and collect the difference in stamp duty, but the Inspector General of Registration sent a reply dated 19.10.2012 stating that the Tamil Nadu Act No. 19 of 1997 came into force from 29.03.1997 and any document registered outside the State of Tamil Nadu had been made as null and void. Since the document of the first plaintiff has been registered on 05.07.1997, subsequent to the Tamil Nadu Act 19 of 1997, the same is null and void. Immediately, the first plaintiff approached the first defendant to execute a fresh sale deed agreeing to bear the total cost of stamp duty and the cost of registration. The first defendant had been dodging to execute a new sale deed citing one reason or other and after coming to know about the nullity of the sale deed, has developed a malafide intention to cheat and defraud the first plaintiff. Thereafter, the first defendant sold a portion of the property to the second defendant on 27.03.2013.

(c) The first plaintiff has been in possession and enjoyment of the suit property as its owner, adverse to the first defendant for more than 15 years from 05.07.1997 till date and as such, the first plaintiff had acquired title by prescription. The defendants may any time forcibly try to enter into the suit property and take possession of the same illegally after evicting the tenants of the first plaintiff from the suit property. The sale deed executed by the first defendant in favour of the second defendant is null and void. Hence, the plaintiffs are constrained to file the above suit to declare that the first plaintiff is the true owner in possession and title holder of the suit property and consequential permanent injunction restraining the defendants and their men from interfering with the plaintiffs' peaceful and enjoyment of the suit property and also for declaration that the sale deed dated 27.03.2013 executed by the first defendant in favour of the second defendant is illegal and null and void.

3. The defence of the second defendant in short is as follows:

(a) The alleged sale deed dated 05.07.1997 is bogus, fraudulent and void ab-initio and the same cannot confer any right, title, interest or possession on the plaintiffs. The first defendant is not the owner of any other property in Kerala, more particularly within the Sub-Registrar Office, Parasala and as such, the sale deed dated 05.07.1997 in respect of the immovable property in the Village of Sevalur, Manapparai is nothing but fraudulent. The Tamil Nadu Act 19 of 1997 came into force on 29.03.1997 and any document registered subsequently at Kerala is void and cannot be cured. Hence the plaintiffs cannot plead ignorance of law.

(b) The second defendant had purchased the suit property on 27.03.2013 and the same is fully supported by consideration. The second defendant, after verifying the Revenue and Registrar authorities, purchased from the first defendant. The first defendant had also delivered the possession of the suit property and thereafter, the revenue records and electricity records got mutated in favour of the second defendant. Hence, the second defendant is the bonafide purchaser of the suit property for value consideration. The second defendant is the absolute owner of the suit property and is in exclusive possession and enjoyment of the same openly, continuously, uninterruptedly and to the knowledge of the plaintiffs and to the entire villagers of Sevalur.

(c) One Rengaraj had filed a suit in O.S. No. 498 of 1996 against the first defendant before the District Munsif Court, Manaparai and the same was dismissed on 26.07.2000. The said Rengaraj had preferred an appeal in A.S. No. 187 of 2000, before II Additional Subordinate Judge, Trichy and the same was also dismissed on 27.03.2002. The first defendant had filed an eviction petition in R.C.O.P. No. 2 of 1997 against one Michelraj before the District Munsif Court, Manaparai and the same was allowed on 25.06.1999. The said Michielraj had preferred an appeal in R.C.A. No. 106 of 1999 and the same was also dismissed on 03.08.2004. The first defendant had also filed an eviction petition in R.C.O.P. No. 3 of 1997 against one Rengaraj and the same was dismissed on 25.02.1999. The first defendant had preferred an appeal in R.C.A. No. 13 of 2000 and the same was allowed on 26.09.2001. The first defendant had also filed a suit for declaration and injunction in O.S. No. 132 of 1997 against one Michelraj before the District Munsif Court, Manaparai and the same was decreed on 08.02.1999. The said Michelraj had also filed Rent Deposit Petition in R.C.O.P. No. 5 of 1999 and the same was dismissed. All the Rent Control Proceedings and the Original Suits were pertaining to the suit properties. Hence, the plaintiffs are not entitled to get any of the reliefs claimed. Consequently, the suit is liable to be dismissed.

4. On the basis of the above pleadings, the trial Court has framed the following issues:

(1) Is the sale deed dated 05.07.1997 between 1st plaintiff and 1st defendant a valid and enforceable one

(2) Is it true to state that the 1st defendant established and retained his title to the suit property through various court proceedings such as O.S. No. 498/96, A.S.187/2000, R.C.O.P.2/97, RCA 106/99, RCOP 3/97, RCA 13/2000, O.S.132/97, RCOP 5/99 and RCOP 4/99 and also RCOP 4/2001

(3) Is it true to state that the 1st and 2nd defendant entered into a sale deed on 27.03.2013 and it is a true, valid and enforceable one

(4) Is the plaintiff entitled for a declaration as he has the title to the suit property

(5) Is the plaintiff entitled for a declaration that the sale deed dated 27.03.2013 in between 1st and 2nd defendant as null and void

(6) To any other relief

5. During trial, the plaintiffs have examined the second plaintiff Saravanan as P.W.1 and the wife of the first plaintiff Tmt. Latha as P.W.5 and three other witnesses viz., Sabiullah, Chithaiyan and Sivakumar as P.W.2 to P.W.4 respectively and exhibited 16 documents as Exs.A.1 to A.16. The first defendant had remained ex parte. The second defendant has examined himself as D.W.1 and exhibited 16 documents as Exs.B.1 to B.16.

6. The learned trial Judge, upon considering the evidences both oral and documentary and on hearing the arguments of both sides, has passed the impugned judgment dated 03.02.2016, dismissing the suit. Aggrieved by the said dismissal of the suit, the plaintiffs have come forward with the present Appeal Suit.

7. The appeal grounds raised by the plaintiffs in short are as follows:

(1) The plaintiffs have themselves admitted that their sale deed executed at Parasala, Kerala State as a void document, but since the first defendant had received the consideration and gave possession, the first plaintiff has become the owner of the suit property.

(2) The first defendant remained ex-parte deliberately and that she is guilty of executing two sale deeds in respect of the suit property and received the consideration from both of them.

(3) The trial Court has failed to consider that the first plaintiff-the previous purchaser was given possession of the suit property and hence, in respect of the second sale deed, the possession was not given and the remedy of the defendants is to recover the possession after proving their title from the plaintiffs through process of law

(4) Since the second defendant did not get the possession of the suit property, he is trying to evict the plaintiffs by illegal means.

(5) The trial Court has failed to notice that there is no document to prove the physical position and enjoyment of the suit property purchased by the second defendant and that the documents such as transfer of E.B. services, house tax and water tax would not prove the physical possession of the suit property.

(6) The trial Court has failed to consider that the first plaintiff has been in long, open, exclusive and continuous possession of the suit property. Hence, the appeal is liable to be dismissed.

8. The points that arise for consideration are

(a) Whether the trial Court erred in recording a finding that Ex.A.1 sale deed dated 05.07.1997 is invalid and un-enforceable as the first plaintiff and the first defendant have included a fictitious property in Ex.A.1, despite showing that Ex.A.1-sale deed was fully supported by consideration, that the possession was taken by the first plaintiff from the first defendant and that the first plaintiff has been in possession and enjoyment of the suit property since 05.07.1997

(b) Whether the trial Court erred in giving a finding that the sale deed dated 27.03.2013 is a true, valid and enforceable document, despite showing that after giving possession to the first plaintiff, the first defendant did not have any possession of the suit property for giving the same to the second defendant and that the first defendant by remaining ex parte had proved the alleged collusion between herself and the second defendant

(c) Whether the plaintiffs are entitled to get the relief of declaration that he is the owner of the suit property or in alternative he has perfected his title by adverse possession

(d) To what other relief the parties are entitled

9. Admittedly, the first defendant purchased the suit property vide sale deed dated 09.10.1996 in document No. 7626/1996, before the Sub-Registrar Office, Parasala, Kerala State. The plaintiffs' case is that the first plaintiff has purchased the suit property on 05.07.1997 vide document No. 1931/1997, before the Sub-Registrar Office, Parasala, Kerala State and that since the date of sale deed, he has been in possession and enjoyment of the suit property as its owner.

10. It is not in dispute that the Tamil Nadu Government, in an attempt to prevent the registration of the documents in respect of the properties situated in Tamil Nadu in any other States, has brought an enactment Act No. 19 of 1997 and the same came into force from 29.03.1997 and whereunder any document registered outside the State of Tamil Nadu in contravention of Section 28(A) of the Act has been made null and void. In the case on hand, admittedly, the first plaintiff's sale deed came to be registered on 05.07.1997 subsequent to 29.03.1997, the date on which the Act No. 19 of 1997 came into force and therefore, the very sale deed dated 05.07.1997 is invalid. No doubt, the plaintiffs have themselves in the plaint have specifically admitted that since their sale deed came to be registered after 29.03.1997, the same has become illegal and null and void. If the document is held to be null and void, then no title can pass on to the transferee on the basis of the invalid sale deed. But the plaintiffs have taken a stand that though the document has become invalid, the said sale deed could be taken into consideration for proving the possession and the transfer of sale consideration and that therefore, the plaintiffs got title and possession with effect from 05.07.1997, when the same was surrendered by the first defendant. This Court is at loss to understand this line of argument advanced by the learned Counsel for the appellants/plaintiffs and since the sale deed itself has become illegal and null and void, the question of proving the possession and the transfer of sale consideration through the said document does not arise at all.

11. The plaintiffs' main contention is that the first plaintiff is the owner of the suit property as per the sale deed dated 05.07.1997 or alternatively he has been in continuous possession for more than 12 years as against the alleged true owner and thereby acquired title by adverse possession. It is pertinent to note that a doubt had arisen as to whether ownership can be claimed on title and adverse possession simultaneously ie., whether it would amount to taking of contradictory and inconsistent pleas. In Karnataka Board of Wakf Vs. Government of India and Others reported in (2004)10 SCC 779 [LQ/SC/1997/624] , the Hon'ble Supreme Court has specifically held that the pleas on title and adverse possession are mutually inconsistent and the latter does not begin to operate until the former is renounced.

12. In Mohanlal (deceased) through his LRs. Vs. Mirza Abdul Gaffar and another reported in 1996(1) SCC 639, the Hon'ble Apex Court has held as follows:

"As regards the first plea, it is inconsistent with the second plea. Having come into possession under the agreement, he must disclaim his right thereunder and plead and prove assertion of his independent hostile adverse possession to the knowledge of the transferor or his successor in title or interest and that the latter had acquiesced to his illegal possession during the entire period of 12 years, i.e., upto completing the period of his title by prescription nec vi nec clam nec precario. Since the appellant's claim is founded on Section 53-A, it goes without saying that he admits by implication that he came into possession of the land lawfully under the agreement and continued to remain in possession till date of the suit. Thereby the plea of adverse possession is not available to the appellant."

13. It is pertinent to note that when a party claims title to a property on the basis of a document in his favour, or in alternative on the basis of adverse possession, he has to plead and prove as to when his claim of ownership has come to an end and as to when such possession becomes adverse. In the case on hand, the plaintiffs have not come out with clear and definite case.

14. Now turning to the plea of adverse possession, it is the specific case of the plaintiffs in the plaint that after taking possession of the suit property, let out the portions of the same for residential as well as commercial purposes, that the tenants under him are in physical possession of the suit property that the second plaintiff has been collecting rents from the tenants and that the plaintiffs have been in possession and enjoyment of the suit property as its owner, adverse to the first defendant for more than 15 years and that therefore, he has perfected his title by adverse possession. But the defence of the second defendant is that he had taken possession of the suit property from the first defendant and that he has been in possession and enjoyment of the suit property till now.

15. It is the further case of the second defendant that the revenue records and electricity records were already got mutated in the name of the second defendant. It is pertinent to note that as already pointed out, the second defendant has purchased a portion of the suit property from the first defendant. The plaintiffs, in order to prove that they have been in possession and enjoyment of the suit property, have examined P.W.2 and P.W.3 alleged to be the tenants of the suit property and produced Exs.A.6, A.8 and A.14 rent agreements entered into with the tenants. P.W.2, in his chief examination affidavit would say that he had taken house property for godown purposes on rent from 2013; that he was paying monthly rent of Rs. 1000/-and that the second defendant with henchmen came to godown on 24.03.2013 and threatened him to vacate the building. Though P.W.2 would admit in cross-examination that the rent agreement was entered into, neither the plaintiffs nor P.W.2 have produced the alleged rent agreement. Moreover, P.W.2 would admit that he was not aware of the eight cases conducted by the first defendant in respect of the suit property and that the first defendant had taken possession from the tenants through Court.

16. P.W.3 in his evidence would say that he became tenant in respect of the house property on the back side and the shop situated in front side of the building bearing Door No. 58 and that he had been running an oil store in the front portion and had been residing in the back portion from 2012 onwards. No doubt, P.W.3 has produced and exhibited the rent agreement under Ex.A.14, but the same was marked subject to the objections raised by the defendants. In cross-examination, P.W.3 would admit that one Radhakrishnan has filed a suit against him and his son in O.S. No. 86 of 2014, on the file of the District Munsif Court, Manaparai and that in the said proceedings, P.W.3 was shown to be residing in Door NO.38, Ramalingam Street, that he was not aware of the eviction petition in R.C.O.P. No. 3 of 1997 filed by the first defendant against one Rengaraj in respect of the building at Door No. 58 and the same was decreed on 25.02.1999, that he was also not aware of the appeal proceedings in R.C.A.NO.13 of 2000 and the other Original Suit and the Rent Control Proceedings between the first defendant and the other tenants. He would further admit that the ration card, voter I.D., and gas connection, all stand in his name for the address in Door No. 38, Ramalingam Street. The plaintiffs have also examined another another son-in-law of the second plaintiff as P.W.4 and the wife of the first defendant as P.W.5 and their evidences have not advanced the case of the plaintiffs further with regard to the possession of the suit property.

17. As already pointed out, the main contention of the second defendant is that there were Original Suit and Rent Control Proceedings pending between the first defendant and the tenants of the suit property. The second defendant in his written statement as well as in his evidence has referred the case proceedings and also produced the certified copies of the orders passed in the suit proceedings. It is evident from Ex.B.11 that the first defendant has filed an eviction petition against one Michel Raj in R.C.O.P. No. 2 of 1997 in respect of Door No. 59 and after enquiry, eviction petition was ordered to be dismissed vide order dated 25.06.1999. Aggrieved by the said dismissal of the eviction petition, the first defendant has preferred an appeal in R.C.A.NO.106 of 1999 and the learned Rent Control Appellate Authority, vide judgment dated 03.08.2004, has allowed the appeal and ordered eviction of the building referred therein. It is further evident from Exs.B.13 and B.14 that the said Michel Raj has filed a petition in R.C.O.P. No. 5 of 1999 against the first defendant seeking permission to deposit the rent into Court and after full enquiry, the petition was ordered to be dismissed vide order dated 12.02.2001. The second defendant has also referred the proceedings in O.S. No. 498 of 1996, A.S. No. 187 of 2000, R.C.O.P. No. 3 of 1997, R.C.A. No. 13 of 2000, O.S. No. 132 of 1997 and in all the proceedings, admittedly the same was either initiated or defended by the first defendant, being the landlord of the building.

18. As already pointed out, admittedly, the first plaintiff has allegedly purchased the suit property on 05.07.1997. As rightly contended by the learned Counsel for the second defendant, it is not the case of the plaintiffs that after purchase in 1997, the tenancy was attorned by the tenants in favour of the first plaintiff. Though the plaintiffs have alleged in the plaint that they let out the portion of the suit property for residential and commercial purposes and that the second plaintiff has been collecting rent from the tenants, he would say in cross-examination that after selling the property, the first defendant had informed the first plaintiff that he would evict the tenants and that therefore, the first plaintiff was not made as a party in the pending eviction proceedings. But in subsequent cross-examination, he would say that the buildings bearing Door Nos. 58 to 61 were in possession of the first defendant prior to his purchase and that no tenants were in the four houses prior to his purchase. But immediately he would say that the tenants were there in Door Nos. 58 and 59 and the buildings bearing Door NO.60 and 61 were rented out to permanent tenants. He would further say that he had taken possession of the said buildings from Court and that he has to see as to whether any documents are available to see that he had taken possession through Court.

19. It is pertinent to note that when P.W.1 was cross examined again on 07.08.2014, he would take "U" turn and depose contrary to the earlier admissions made by him and the relevant portion is extracted hereunder:

"This content is in vernacular language. Kindly email us at info@legitquest.com for this content."

20. It is pertinent to note that the first plaintiff would admit in clear terms that she had not taken possession of the suit property subsequently. As already pointed out, even after Ex.A.1 sale deed, the first defendant alone had proceeded with the pending proceedings and even in the year 1999, the first defendant had preferred Rent Control Appeal and another Rent Control Appeal was filed against her.

21. No doubt, the plaintiffs have produced the property tax receipts under Ex.A.10 series, whereunder it is evident that out of 17 receipts, 5 receipts contain the name of the first plaintiff as the person making payment and in those 5 receipts, the assessment was shown to be in the name of the first defendant and the other receipts stand in the name of the first defendant. On the other hand, the second defendant has produced the name transfer order issued by the Manaparai Corporation, demand notice and the property tax receipts and whereunder it is evident that the property tax assessment was changed to the second defendant. It is evident from Ex.P.7 that the electricity service connection standing in the name of one Chinnasamy was transferred in the name of the second defendant. On considering the entire evidence available, this Court has no hesitation to hold that the plaintiffs have miserably failed to prove that the first plaintiff has been in possession and enjoyment of the suit property from the date of Ex.A.1 or subsequently. Since the plaintiffs have not proved their possession in the suit property, the question of claiming adverse possession does not arise at all. It is pertinent to note that the plaintiffs have been alleging that the defendants 1and 2 are in collusion, but on the other hand, the second defendant has been alleging that the plaintiffs and the first defendant are in collusion.

22. The plaintiffs have also prayed for a relief to declare that the sale deed dated 27.03.2013 executed by the first defendant in favour of the second defendant is illegal and null and void and the reason canvassed by the plaintiffs is that without getting possession of the suit property through lawful means, the first defendant executed an illegal document in favour of the second defendant. This Court has already decided that the plaintiffs have failed to prove that they have been in possession and enjoyment of the suit property from the alleged purchase. But on the other hand, there was ample evidence to show that the first defendant had been in possession and enjoyment of the suit property and after Ex.B.3 sale deed, the second defendant has been in possession and enjoyment of the suit property. The plaintiffs have not canvassed any other reason or ground to impugn Ex.B.3 sale deed.

23. Considering the above, though this Court is not in agreement with the reasons assigned for deciding the issues, the final conclusion of the trial Court that the suit is liable to be dismissed, cannot be found fault with. Hence this Court concludes that the Appeal Suit is devoid of merits and the same is liable to be dismissed. Accordingly, the above points are answered.

24. In the result, the Appeal Suit is dismissed and the Judgment and Decree dated 03.02.2016, passed by III Additional District Judge, Tiruchirappalli, in O.S. No. 83 of 2013, is confirmed. Consequently, the connected Miscellaneous Petition is dismissed. The parties are directed to bear their own costs.