T. N. VALLINAYAGAM, J. ( 1 ) THIS appeal is preferred by the defendants who challenge the decree for possession granted in favour of the plaintiff apart from declaration of title. ( 2 ) THE case of the plaintiff in brief is that the 2nd defendant is the daughter of plaintiff and 1st defendant is the husband of 2nd defendant. The suit schedule property measuring 30'x 43' was purchased by plaintiff from Sharadamma on 18. 6. 79 under a registered sale deed out of her earnings. Plaintiff is a nurse in government Department. She constructed 3. 5 square feet house on the suit site and since then living there along with her son and second daughter namely 2nd defendant. Her son is a handicapped person having suffered burning injuries and so plaintiff got married to him with another handicapped girl by name Ms. Leeza. First defendant is a resident of the same locality where the suit property is situated and he became friendly with the 2nd defendant during the month of october 1988. In that month defendants came to the plaintiff and expressed them to become husband and wife as they married each other. To the knowledge of plaintiff, they were not married under special Marriage Act. Then plaintiff suggested to go through formal marriage for the purpose of record. At that juncture on the request of the 1st defendant plaintiff permitted 4th defendant to stay in the schedule premises. Thereafter, 1st defendant turned out to be a person not amenable to any reason and began to give trouble to plaintiff. As life of plaintiff became miserable, she came and took shelter with a friend in the address given in the cause title temporarily. Thereafter, plaintiff requested defendants to leave the schedule premises. As they did not obey, she got issued legal notice on 24. 10. 89. For that defendant got replied on 2. 11. 89 refusing to comply with the demand of plaintiff to leave the suit schedule premises. It is also recited in the reply that first defendant paid rs. 30,000/- to construct the suit property and also contended that she offered to gift the suit property to 2nd defendant. All those averments are false. Plaintiff is the absolute owner of the suit schedule property and she only permitted defendants to reside and hence both defendants are liable to be ejected. 30,000/- to construct the suit property and also contended that she offered to gift the suit property to 2nd defendant. All those averments are false. Plaintiff is the absolute owner of the suit schedule property and she only permitted defendants to reside and hence both defendants are liable to be ejected. As the defendants refused to give up the suit premises, the plaintiff is entitled for mesne profits at the rate of Rs. 100/- p. m. from the month of November 1989. The cause of action arose on 24. 10. 89 so also on 2. 11. 89. Hence this suit. ( 3 ) THE defendant denied the averments made in the plaint and also admitted some of the facts as true. Defendants contended as it is true on 18. 6. 79 plaintiff purchased the suit property from sharadamma who is also relative to defendant No. 1. The other averments regarding construction of house and permitting them to live therein are all false. It is defendants who constructed the house is the Schedule property and living there as plaintiff assured that she would give the suit property as dowry for them and also he executed a gift deed in their favour soon after the marriage. Accordingly in the year 1980 defendants married and now they got a son aged 8 years by name Vikram and another son by name goutam aged 6 months. Since 1980 the defendants are living in the suit schedule property. They are not married in the month of december 1988 but they got married in the month of June 1988. Plaintiff is residing in her own house which is given in the causes title of the plaint. The notice issued by the plaintiff is true and defendants replied the same properly. Defendants invested rs. 30,000/- for construction of the suit house with the consent of the plaintiff as she assured to execute gift deed. Plaintiff is not entitled for mesne profits so also accrued due amount of Rs. 2,000/- and future mesne profits. Defendants perfected their title to the suit property by adverse possession as they are in possession of the suit property for more then 12 years. The plaintiff is bound to execute gift deed in favour of defendants. If the plaintiff were to execute the gift deed, this Court may be pleased to do the same on behalf of the plaintiff. Defendants perfected their title to the suit property by adverse possession as they are in possession of the suit property for more then 12 years. The plaintiff is bound to execute gift deed in favour of defendants. If the plaintiff were to execute the gift deed, this Court may be pleased to do the same on behalf of the plaintiff. Thereby defendants pray to dismiss the suit and pray to direct the plaintiff to execute the gift deed and if she fails to do so court to execute the same on behalf of the plaintiff. ( 4 ) ON the above pleadings, the following issues are framed and answered accordingly; 1. Whther plaintiff proves that she is the owner of the suit schedule property? - Affirmative, 2. Whether plaintiff proves that she permitted the defendants to occupy the schedule premises for a temporary period as alleged in para-5 of the plaint? - Affirmative 3. Whether plaintiff 'proves that the defendants are liable to be ejected from the suit schedule property? - Affirmative 4. Whether plaintiff proves she is entitled to recover Rs. 2,000/- towards mesne profit at the rate of Rs. 100 p. m. ? - Does not arise. ( 5 ) WHETHER plaintiff proves that she is entitled to recover mesne profit at Rs. 100/- p. m. ? - Does not arise. ( 6 ) WHETHER defendant proves that they have constructed the suit scheduled house having invested Rs. 30,000/- with the consent of the plaintiff on the assurance that the plaintiff would execute the gift deed in respect of the suit schedule site in their favour? - Negative ( 7 ) WHETHER defendants prove that they have perfected their title by adverse possession over the suit schedule property? - negative ( 8 ) WHETHER the suit is valued property and the Court fee paid is sufficient? - Does not arise ( 9 ) IS the plaintiff entitled to a decree as prayed for - Affirmative ( 10 ) WHAT order or decree? - As per order Addl. Issue 1. Whether defendant prove that the plaintiff is liable to execute the gift deed in respect of the suit property? - Negative. 5. It is now contended before me that the defendants are daughter and son-in-law. - As per order Addl. Issue 1. Whether defendant prove that the plaintiff is liable to execute the gift deed in respect of the suit property? - Negative. 5. It is now contended before me that the defendants are daughter and son-in-law. They questioned the title of the plaintiff herself but yet they claim that they are in possession along with her having spent lot of money for the same. In particular, the son-in-law claims that he has spent Rs. 30,000/- on the property. 6. Heard the Counsel. 7. I find prima facie, the defendants have no right in the property at all. It is also seen from the written statement that they tried to attack the sale deed in favour of the plaintiff as one purchased from minor. The validity of the sale deed is not taken in this suit and it is not open to the defendants to raise the same. In fact, the defendant began to claim title by adverse possession. Without admitting the title of the plaintiff, how they are entitled to raise the question of adverse possession is not known to law. One of the contention raised is that the plaintiff is bound to execute the gift deed in favour of the defendants. 8. The daughter under the attraction of the husband wants to throw away the mother and wants to become a prodigal daughter by disobeying the wishes of the mother and allowing herself from the affection of the mother from whom she came. Certainly, Courts cannot come to the help of such a daughter and son-in-law. they have got to surrender before the mother and the son-in-law who wants to reside in the property of the mother-in-law should certainly respect the mother-in-law plead her for permission and then only he can survive. If he does not want his mother-in-law, he can as well get out of the property. He cannot say "i don't want you but the property. " This is against the principle of morality, the principle of affection and attachment if not law. I do not find any merit in the appeal and I have no sympathy for such a daughter and son-in-law who wants to throw away the mother on the road. Appeal is therefore dismissed. --- *** --- .