Judgment :- This appeal has been preferred against the judgment and decree dated 11.12.2002 made in O.S.No.61 of 2000 on the file of the Additional District Court, Karaikal. 2. The following are the averments in the plaint succinctly stated: 2.1. The suit property in question originally belonged to Naina Maricar and he died leaving his two sons, viz., Samsudeen and Periyathambi and a daughter Seeniammal. After his death, the property in question devolved upon his children. The said Periyathambi acquired the undivided share of Samsudeen and Seeniyammal in the suit property and became the absolute owner of the same. He had two wives, viz. Howla Ammal and Asia Ummal. The said Howla Ammal had no issues. But, Asia Ummal had one son, namely, Kadhar Sulthan. The plaintiffs are the daughters and son of the said Kadhar Sultan. They are the sole heirs of Khader Sulthan, who are all the absolute owners of the suit property after the death of their parents, grandmother and step-grand mother. 2. (ii) One Sara Ummal, wife of Allah Pitchai, filed a suit against Asia Ummal and her son Kadhar Sulthan for damages towards the value of trees belonging to her said to have been unlawfully cut and removed by Asia Ummal and the suit property was attached and brought to Court auction on 18.11.1952. One Sheik Abdul Kadhar is said to have purchased the suit property in the Court auction sale held on 18.11.1952. However, he did not take possession of the suit property in pursuance of the Court auction sale. The said Howla Ammal, the step grandmother of the plaintiffs was not a party to the suit filed by Sara Ummal and she filed a petition under the French Procedure impleading Khader Sultan, Asia Ummal, Shaik Abdul Khader and Sara Ummal for declaration that the judgment for auction of the suit property is null and void since her share also has been sold without notice to her. During the pendency of the said proceedings, the said Sara Ummal died. Her children were impleaded as respondents 4 to 8 in those proceedings. The Court below declared the judgment for auction of the suit property as null and void. Thus, the said Kadhar Sulthan and his mother Asia Ummal and his step mother Howla Ammal continued to be in possession of the suit property as owners thereon. Her children were impleaded as respondents 4 to 8 in those proceedings. The Court below declared the judgment for auction of the suit property as null and void. Thus, the said Kadhar Sulthan and his mother Asia Ummal and his step mother Howla Ammal continued to be in possession of the suit property as owners thereon. In the meanwhile, the said Howla Ammal, Asia Ummal and Khader Sultan died and the plaintiffs, being the children of Khader Sultan, had been in possession of the suit property. 2. (iii) While so, one Mohamed Thageer alias Thaha is alleged to have purchased the suit property from the Court auction purchaser, who in turn is said to have sold the property in question to his wife Abitha Ummal, who in turn alleged to have gifted the property to her daughter, Rahmath Gani, the defendant herein. Since the Court auction sale dated 18.11.1982 has been declared as null and void, the above-said transactions that had happened whatsoever are also null and void. 2. (iv). The defendants mother Abitha Ummal trespassed into the suit property and therefore, the first plaintiff sent a lawyers notice dated 28.01.1997 calling upon her to vacate and surrender the possession of the suit property. The defendant herein has filed a suit in O.S.No.103 of 1997 on the file of the Principal District Municipal, Karaikal for permanent injunction against the plaintiffs and the same was decreed in favour of the defendant against which, the plaintiffs filed appeal in A.S.No.40 of 1998 on the file of the Additional District Judge, Pondicherry, Karaikal. However, the same was dismissed by the first appellate Court. The decision in favour of the defendant was based on the admission of the first plaintiff in her notice dated 28.01.1997. Therefore, the present suit is laid for declaration of plaintiffs title and recovery of possession of the suit property. 3. In the written statement filed by the defendant, the allegations are as follows: 3.1. Admittedly, the property was sold in a Court auction sale in execution against a validly obtained decree. The auction sale proceedings were concluded on 18.11.1952. Thereafter, the actual physical possession of the property was taken on 29.10.1959 and delivery was effected by the Court bailiff, when the proceedings for setting aside the sale was pending. Admittedly, the property was sold in a Court auction sale in execution against a validly obtained decree. The auction sale proceedings were concluded on 18.11.1952. Thereafter, the actual physical possession of the property was taken on 29.10.1959 and delivery was effected by the Court bailiff, when the proceedings for setting aside the sale was pending. Therefore, the suit is filed 48 years after the sale and 42 years after the actual physical delivery was given to the auction purchaser. The question now arises for consideration in the present suit is as to whether after having obtained decree and filed an execution petition, whether a fresh suit for recovery of possession would arise. The defendant and her mother have been exercising all rights of ownership over the suit property by their own occupation and leasing out and mortgaging portion of the property. In all the revenue records, this defendant is shown to be the owner of the suit property. The Courts have concurrently held that there is no dispute about the identity of the property. The description of the property as given in the plaint is not proper and correct. The suit is without merit and is liable to be dismissed with costs. 4. After considering the pleadings, evidence on record and exhibits, the learned Additional District Judge, Karaikal, has declared the right of these respondents in the suit property and directed this appellant to deliver vacant possession of the same. Aggrieved by this, the appellant who is the defendant before the Court below is before this Court with this appeal. 5. The following points have arisen for consideration in this appeal. (i) Whether the respondents have got title over the suit property and whether they are entitled for recovery of possession of the same? (ii) Whether the appellant has got right over the property? Point No:1 & 2: These points are taken up together for consideration as they are interlinked with each other. 6. The suit property originally belonged to one Naina Maricar. The following is the genealogical table showing his descendants :- Naina Maricar Samsudeen Periyathambi Seeniammal Wives Howla Ammal Asia Ummal No issues Kadhar Sulthan Wife Fathima Joharan Daughters Salma Nachiyal Hobaga Gani Hameed Monicour p1 p2 p3 7. One Sara Ummal filed a suit against Asia Ummal and Kadhar Sulthan for damages towards value of trees. The suit property was brought to Court auction on 18.11.1952. One Sara Ummal filed a suit against Asia Ummal and Kadhar Sulthan for damages towards value of trees. The suit property was brought to Court auction on 18.11.1952. On that date, one Sheik Abdul Khader took the property. It is the case of the respondents that the said Sheik Abdul Khader did not take possession of the property through Court. Conversely, the appellant contends that he took delivery through Court on 29.10.1959. Ex.B.1 is the English translation of the Sale Certificate given by the Court in favour of Sheik Abdul Khader. The originals of the Court documents are in French language. The delivery of possession is evident from Exs.B.2 and 4 documents dated 26.03.1953 and 04.04.1953 respectively. Ex.B.4 is the vital document which shows the delivery of possession in favour of Sheik Abdul Khader, wherein the Court bailiff mentioned that he had put him in possession and he took actual possession of the land. The cumulative effect of Exs.B.2 and 4 would clinchingly establish that in pursuance of the Court auction, Sheik Abdul Khader levied execution proceedings and got delivery of the suit property through Court. 8. On 12.03.1967, Sheik Abdul Khader sold the property in favour of one Thahamaraikayar, who in turn sold the same to his wife one Abitha Ummal by means of a registered sale deed, Ex.B.5, on 28.03.1969. In this document, the said Thahamaraikayar had mentioned that he purchased the property from Sheik Abdul Khader on 12.03.1967. The said Abitha Ummal had executed a registered mortgage deed Ex.B.6 in respect of the suit property in favour of one Arif for a consideration of Rs.950/-. The said mortgage was discharged by Abitha Ummal on 13.08.1979 as evident from the registered receipt Ex. B.7. 8.1. It is contended by the appellant that the property was gifted by her mother Abitha Ummal at the time of her marriage on 10.09.1981. It may be seen from Ex.B.8 “Kalyana Kaditham”. The marriage of the respondent was registered in Karaikal Jamad. Ex.B.8 is the copy of “Kalyana Kaditham” issued by the Government Town Kazi Karaikal. The writer of the Government Town Kazi of Karikal has been examined as DW2. He deposes that he has issued copy of “Kalyana Kaditham” singed by the Town Kazi M.S.Mohammed Maricar, that he compared the original book, which is exactly verbal reproduction. Ex.X1 is the verified and attested true copy of Kalyana Kaditham. The writer of the Government Town Kazi of Karikal has been examined as DW2. He deposes that he has issued copy of “Kalyana Kaditham” singed by the Town Kazi M.S.Mohammed Maricar, that he compared the original book, which is exactly verbal reproduction. Ex.X1 is the verified and attested true copy of Kalyana Kaditham. By establishing Ex.B.2, the fact that the suit property was orally gifted to the respondent by her mother has been established. 8.2. In the above said suit, which culminated in the Court auction sale, the first wife of Periyathambi by name Howla Ammal was not impleaded. Hence, proceedings were initiated at her behest and the Court auction sale was set aside by the Civil Court on 08.04.1960. The copy of the decree is Ex.A.2. The appellant filed a suit in O.S.No.103 of 1997 on the file of the Principal District Munisif, Karaikal for permanent injunction with respect to the suit property. The suit was decreed granting permanent injunction to this appellant. The judgment copy is Ex.A.4 in which the learned District Munsif has observed that the plaintiff (appellant herein), in proof of her pleadings had produced relevant documents which show that right from the year 1969, she has been exercising the right of possession of the property through her title deed and subsequently, transferred the same in favour of Abitha Ummal. There is no rebuttal evidence by the other side. These respondents preferred appeal before the Additional District Court, Pondicherry, at Karaikal, in A.S. No. 40 of 1998. The appeal was dismissed on 13.10.1998 by the appellate Court. The judgment copy is Ex. A. 12. The appellate Court has observed that in the legal notice Ex.A.6, the appellants have admitted the possession of the respondent. It is contended by the respondents herein that in the afore-said suit, the appellant herein did not produce any document to show the possession of the Court auction purchaser from 18.11.1952. 9. Per contra, it is stated by the appellant that even though the Court auction sale was set aside thereafter, the respondents did not take any proceedings to get delivery of the property and the possession was continuing with the Court auction purchaser. In this connection, it is to be seen that the Court auction was set aside on 08.04.1960, while the Court auction purchaser Sheik Abdul Khader took delivery of the possession as early as in 1953. In this connection, it is to be seen that the Court auction was set aside on 08.04.1960, while the Court auction purchaser Sheik Abdul Khader took delivery of the possession as early as in 1953. Hence, it is clear that at the time of passing of the judgment in Ex.A.2 in 1960, Sheik Abdul Khader had been in possession and there is no document to show that the respondents initiated execution proceedings and got delivery through Court. There is no pleading to that effect in the plaint also. P.W.1, the first plaintiff also in her cross-examination would state that they filed execution petition in the year 1952, that no enquiry was taken up on that petition and that she does not know what happened to the execution petition. As plaintiffs, it is incumbent upon them to prove that their predecessors or themselves were in possession, after Ex.A.2. The non-initiation of the execution proceedings to get delivery of the property would show that they did not lawfully take delivery from the Court auction purchaser. In the absence of such execution proceedings, it is to be observed that the Court auction purchaser had been in possession till he sold the property on 12.03.1967 to Thahamaraikayar. To establish the continuous possession and enjoyment of the respondents, they have not produced any document. 10. On the contrary, the appellant has produced documents for possession standing in the name of her mother. The oral gift given in her favour on 10.09.1981 and the documents which came to existence afterwards in the name of her mother would not show that the appellant did not get the property from her mother, as per the appellate Court. But the fact remains that the property was not in possession of the respondents during the relevant period. Exs.B.6 and 7 the mortgage deed and discharge receipt respectively would vividly show that Abitha Ummal was enjoying the property. Exs.B.9 and 10 are the pattas and notice issued from the Revenue Department, Karikal for the suit property in the name of Abitha Ummal. Exs.B.11 is the patta issued in the name of the appellant on 05.06.1997 for the suit property. Exs.B.12 to 15 are the receipts and notices issued from the Karaikal Municipality to Abitha Ummal in the year 1984, 1985 and 1990. Exs.B.11 is the patta issued in the name of the appellant on 05.06.1997 for the suit property. Exs.B.12 to 15 are the receipts and notices issued from the Karaikal Municipality to Abitha Ummal in the year 1984, 1985 and 1990. Ex.B.12 is the property tax receipts for the year 1989-1990, 1990-1991, 1991-1992 and 1992-1993 issued on 21.07.1993 in the name of Abitha Ummal. Ex.B.16 is the receipt issued by the Revenue Department in the name of Abitha Ummal, so also Ex.B.17. They are all of the years 1976 and 1985. 10.1. The above said documentary piece of evidence would candidly establish that after the sale on 28.03.1969, Abitha Ummal had been in possession continuously. It may be stated that in 1981, after she gifted away the property to her daughter, she had been paying the revenue payable for the suit property to the Municipality and the Revenue Department. Still, it is to be observed that during the relevant period, the respondents had not been in possession of the suit property. 11. The respondents are silent as regards the date of trespass by the appellant into the suit property. P.W.1 in her cross-examination would depose that while she was not in the town in 1997, the defendant had trespassed into the property. But the documents produced by the appellant would show the contrary position. In the plaint, the cause of action column does not contain the date of alleged trespass by the defendant, which is very much essential. On a deep scrutiny of the above said materials, it is seen that the respondents have never been in possession after the Court auction purchaser took delivery of the property. 11.1. Concededly, there is no document of possession existing in the name of the respondents. In these circumstances, they are not entitled to any pecuniary recovery of possession, as they have miserably failed to establish their title to the suit property even though they obtained an order from the Court in their favour, setting aside the auction sale. Since they did not take possession of the property in a manner known to law, by long passage of time their rights in the suit property got extinguished. Hence, the judgment and decree of the Court below have necessarily to be interfered with and the appeal deserves to be allowed. The points raised by this Court are decided in favour of the appellant. 12. Hence, the judgment and decree of the Court below have necessarily to be interfered with and the appeal deserves to be allowed. The points raised by this Court are decided in favour of the appellant. 12. In the result, the appeal is allowed by setting aside the judgment and decree passed in O.S.No.61 of 2000 by the Additional District Court, Karaikal and accordingly, the suit is dismissed. No costs.