Research › Search › Judgment

Madras High Court · body

2017 DIGILAW 1505 (MAD)

Prabhakar @ Babuji v. K. Margabandhu

2017-06-01

N.SATHISH KUMAR

body2017
JUDGMENT : Aggrieved over the judgment and decree of the trial Court granting declaration, recovery of possession and damages, the defendant has preferred the instant appeal. Similarly, dissatisfied with the amount awarded towards damages, the plaintiffs have preferred the instant Cross objection. 2. For the sake of convenience, the parties are referred to, as per their ranking before the trial Court. 3. The plaintiff filed a suit in O.S.No.108 of 2011, before the learned Principal District Judge, Thiruvallur, for recovery of possession and for damages with costs. 4. After contest, the suit was decreed with costs. 5. The facts leading to the filing of this appeal are as follows: (i) The suit property originally belonged to one Govinda Babu. The said Govinda Babu died intestate on 15.12.1992 leaving behind the 2nd plaintiff as his sole legal heir to inherit the properties. While so, the defendant, who is the brother's son of late Govinda Babu, claiming himself as the foster son of late Govinda Babu, has filed a suit in O.S.No. 53 of 1994 before the District Munsif Court, Thiruvallur, on the basis of the Will alleged to have been executed by the said Govinda Babu, for declaration and permanent injunction. After a full fledged trial, the aforesaid suit was dismissed on 05.3.2004. Against which, appeal being A.S.No.38 of 2004, was filed and the same was dismissed. The second appeal in S.A.No.1554 of 2005 preferred by the defendant was also dismissed on 28.9.2010. (ii) In the meanwhile, the 2nd plaintiff executed five (5) sale deeds in respect of the suit properties for valuable consideration in favour of Mr.K.Margabandu, the 1st plaintiff, and the same were duly registered on 16.1.2005. Hence, the 1st plaintiff has become absolute owner of the suit properties. After disposal of the aforementioned second appeal, (S.A.No. 1554 of 2010) Declaration Deed was executed by the 2nd plaintiff on 08.11.2010 confirming the Sale Deeds executed in favour of the 1st plaintiff with an undertaking not to make any claim over the suit properties. As the suit filed by the defendant was dismissed and the same reached finality, in view of the dismissal of SLP and that the Will propounded by the defendant also found to be fabricated and surrounded with suspicious circumstances, the defendant is bound to handover possession of the suit properties. As the suit filed by the defendant was dismissed and the same reached finality, in view of the dismissal of SLP and that the Will propounded by the defendant also found to be fabricated and surrounded with suspicious circumstances, the defendant is bound to handover possession of the suit properties. (iii) In these circumstances, notice dated 30.3.2011 was sent to the defendant calling upon him to deliver possession of suit properties and to pay the damages of Rs.50,000/- per acre on 11.10.2010 for his unlawful use and occupation. The above notice was replied with false allegation. The 1st plaintiff, who is the purchaser of the suit properties, and the 2nd plaintiff, who is the vendor of the suit properties, have joined together and had filed the present suit through their General Power Agent, Mr.K.Sundararaj, for declaration, delivery of possession and for damages. (iv) While admitting the factum of dismissal of the earlier suit in O.S.No.53 of 1994, which reached finality in view of dismissal of SLP, it is the contention of the defendant that the suit is barred and that the plaintiffs are legally estopped from filing the suit. According to the defendant, the deceased Govinda Babu left the village and settled at Chennai permanently due to his business affairs in the year 1970. According to him, from the year 1975 onwards, the defendant is in possession and enjoyment of the schedule mentioned properties by raising crops over the same. Further, it is stated that late Govinda Babu has adopted the defendant as his “foster son” and he is in possession and enjoyment of the properties in open and in uninterrupted manner for the past 37 years. The said possession and enjoyment of the defendant is known to entire villagers and also to the 2nd plaintiff. Unfortunately, the said Govinda Babu was murdered on 15.12.1992. Prior to his death Mr.Govinda Babu bequeathed the properties in favour of the defendant by executing a Will dated 15.06.1992. (v) It is contended that even in the previous suit, the 2nd plaintiff has admitted that the defendant is in possession and enjoyment of the properties. Hence, even prior to 1994, the 2nd plaintiff had the knowledge and acquiesce that the defendant is in exclusive possession and enjoyment of the properties. Therefore, the transaction in favour of the 1st plaintiff is hit by law of “lis pendens”. Hence, even prior to 1994, the 2nd plaintiff had the knowledge and acquiesce that the defendant is in exclusive possession and enjoyment of the properties. Therefore, the transaction in favour of the 1st plaintiff is hit by law of “lis pendens”. Similarly, during the pendency of the second appeal, the 1st plaintiff filed an impleading application in C.M.P.No.241 of 2008 in S.A.No.1554 of 2005 stating that he has purchased the properties on 16.11.2005. In the above application, the 2nd plaintiff had filed a counter interalia contending that the documents have been forged by the 1st plaintiff. The 2nd plaintiff, having parted with the property to the 1st plaintiff, cannot claim any relief as owner of the said properties. Hence, the suit is bad for misjoinder of parties. The Power of Attorney and the 1st plaintiff have created the documents, after obtaining signature of the 2nd plaintiff. The plaintiffs have approached the Court with unclean hands. Hence, the defendant prayed for dismissal of the suit. 6. Based on the above pleadings, the following issues were framed by the trial Court : (1) Whether the 1st plaintiff is entitled for declaration that he is the owner of the suit properties? (2) Whether the 2nd plaintiff is entitled for delivery of vacant possession of the suit properties? (3) Whether the 1st plaintiff is entitled for damages for use and occupation as prayed? (4) To what relief the 1st plaintiff is entitled for? 7. The following additional issues were also framed by the Trial Court: 1. Whether the suit is bad for misjoinder of party? 2. Whether the suit is barred by the principle of resjudicata? 3. Whether the defendant has perfected his title by adverse possession? 8. On the side of the plaintiff, one Sundararajan, the Power Agent of the plaintiffs was examined as P.W.1 and Ramakrishnaprasad and Vijayaraghavan were examined as P.W.2 and P.W3 and Exs. A1 to A19 were marked. On the side of the defendant, the defendant himself was examined as DW1 and three witnesses were examined as D.W.2 to D.W.4 and Exs. B1 and B22 were marked. 9. On the basis of oral and documentary evidence, the Trial Court has held that the 1st plaintiff is entitled for declaration and recovery of possession. The Trial Court has also awarded damages of Rs.1,00,000/- p.a from 10.11.2010 to 11.3.2016 and future damages till the date of delivery of possession. B1 and B22 were marked. 9. On the basis of oral and documentary evidence, the Trial Court has held that the 1st plaintiff is entitled for declaration and recovery of possession. The Trial Court has also awarded damages of Rs.1,00,000/- p.a from 10.11.2010 to 11.3.2016 and future damages till the date of delivery of possession. Aggrieved against the same, the defendant has preferred the present appeal. Feeling dissatisfied with the meagre damages granted by the Trial Court, the 1st plaintiff has filed the instant Cross Objection for enhancement of the damages. 10. The learned counsel for the appellant/defendant has vehemently contended that the marriage of the 2nd plaintiff with Govinda Babu has not been proved. The marriage certificate, which has been filed, also create serious doubt about the marriage. The learned counsel further contended that the Power Agent has no right to speak about the transaction took place between the parties. At the most, he can depose with regard to the facts, which are exclusively within his knowledge. Therefore, the evidence of P.W.1 cannot be given any importance. The execution of Ex.A19, Declaration Deed and Ex.A12, Power of Attorney in different place creates serious doubt about the said documents. It is submitted that in previous suit, the 2nd plaintiff has filed an affidavit before this court disputing the execution of Sale Deeds in favour of the 1st plaintiff. The 2nd plaintiff has, in fact, denied the execution of the Sale Deeds in favour of the 1st plaintiff whereas in the present suit, she has joined with the 1st plaintiff. This conduct of the 2nd plaintiff in joining with the 1st plaintiff and executing Declaration Deed itself would create serious doubt about the entire transaction. 11. Learned counsel for the appellant/defendant further submitted that the defendant is in possession of the property from the year 1975 and his possession is open, continuous and uninterrupted. Before the trial Court, the plaintiffs have not chosen to adduce evidence and only the Power Agent was examined. Therefore, it is submitted that the trial Court, without appreciating the entire evidence, has granted declaratory relief, which is not sustainable in law. It is the vehement contention of the learned counsel that the Power Agent has not obtained permission under Order 3 Rule 2 CPC for filing the instant suit on behalf of plaintiffs. Hence, according to the learned counsel, the suit is liable to be dismissed. It is the vehement contention of the learned counsel that the Power Agent has not obtained permission under Order 3 Rule 2 CPC for filing the instant suit on behalf of plaintiffs. Hence, according to the learned counsel, the suit is liable to be dismissed. In support of his arguments, the learned counsel has placed reliance on the judgment reported in 2010 (1) MWN (Civil) 454 (The Lakshmi Mills Co.Ltd., rep.by its Managing Director v. R. Ramajaam and three others). 12. Per contra, it is the contention of the learned counsel for the respondents/plaintiffs that the appellant/defendant has already filed a suit based on the alleged Will said to have been executed by late Govinda Babu, which was dismissed and the same reached finality in view of the dismissal of SLP. It is submitted that the Will propounded by the defendant is found to be suspicious and the same was disbelieved by the Court and that the defendant was in possession of the property with permission of the said Govinda Babu. This permissive possession never been converted into adverse possession by the defendant. It is further submitted that mere possession of property will not amount to adverse possession at any stretch of imagination. The 2nd plaintiff and the deceased Govinda Babu has no issue at all. The defendant, for the first time before this Court, has raised a dispute with regard to marriage between the 2nd plaintiff and the said Govinda Babu. In fact, the appellant/defendant himself admitted the marriage of the 2nd plaintiff with Govinda Babu in all the previous litigation and he has also admitted the same in his own evidence in the instant suit as well. Therefore, the question of the alleged dispute with regard to the marriage does not arise at all. 13. It is the main contention of the learned counsel that though in the previous suit, the 2nd plaintiff has filed an affidavit disputing the Sale Deeds executed in favour of the 1st plaintiff, subsequently, she has executed Declaration deed and Power of Attorney confirming the said sale. It is the contention of the learned counsel that, at the most, the admission of the 2nd plaintiff in the previous proceedings would amount to estoppal and not a conclusive proof and admission can be explained by the party. It is the contention of the learned counsel that, at the most, the admission of the 2nd plaintiff in the previous proceedings would amount to estoppal and not a conclusive proof and admission can be explained by the party. It is submitted that the 2nd plaintiff was examined before this Court and she has also admitted about the execution of Sale Deeds, Power of Attorney and other documents. Therefore, once the title has been legally passed, the defendant, without having any right over the property, cannot squat over the property. Taking advantage of the fact that the 2nd plaintiff is a widow, the defendant has managed to be in possession of the property all these years. The alleged adverse possession has not even been pleaded by the defendant and also not been proved. Hence, prayed for dismissal of the suit. 14. The learned counsel for the plaintiffs/Cross Objectors contented that the evidence available on record itself would show that the suit properties comprised of more than 20 acres and fetching adequate income and in fact, two crops can be raised in the suit properties. Therefore, awarding a sum of Rs.1,00,000/-p.a. towards damage by the Trial Court is not proper and it has to be enhanced by allowing the cross objection. 15. In the light of the above submissions, now the points that arise for consideration in this appeal are: 1. Whether the 1st plaintiff, who claims to be the owner of the suit properties, is entitled for declaration, recovery of possession and damages as prayed for? 2. Whether the 1st defendant has perfected title over the suit properties by way of adverse possession? 3. Whether the damages ordered by the Trial Court is insufficient and the same is liable to be enhanced? 4. Whether the Power Agent has not obtained permission to file a suit as required under law? 5. To what relief? Point No.4 16. It is the main contention of the learned counsel for the appellant that the suit filed by the Power Agent is not enforceable as no permission, whatsoever, has been obtained by the said Power Agent as required under law. 5. To what relief? Point No.4 16. It is the main contention of the learned counsel for the appellant that the suit filed by the Power Agent is not enforceable as no permission, whatsoever, has been obtained by the said Power Agent as required under law. From the records, which have been called for from the Trial Court, it could be seen that at the time of filing the suit Interlocutory Application No. 437 of 2011 was filed under Order 3 Rule 2 of CPC by one K.Sundararaj, the Power of Attorney, seeking permission to sue the defendant as Power Agent of the plaintiffs. In the above application, on the date of filing of the suit, instead of allowing the application, the Trial Court, has, in fact, ordered notice to other side. Though notice was duly served on the defendant, the said application has been adjourned from time to time from 12.11.2011 and finally on 05.9.2012, it was adjourned by 03.10.2012 for filing counter by the defendant herein. However, the defendant has not filed counter. Thereafter, the aforesaid application was allowed on 03.10.2012. 17. It is to be noted that as per Order 3 Rule 2 CPC, the moment when the application has been filed by Power Agent to maintain the suit, the Court ought to have passed an order but instead of that, the Court has ordered notice. Even after entering appearance, the 1st defendant has not filed counter and hence, the application has been allowed belatedly. 18. It is further to be noted that permission was granted to sue the defendant as Power Agent of the plaintiffs subsequently, i.e. after numbering the suit and it was a curable defect and that the same would not affect the right of the parties. 19. In Vairavan v. R.V.Periannan Chettiar ( 2006 (3) CTC 486 ), this Court has held that the application filed under Order 3 Rule 2 of CPC at the stage of trial or arguments to permit one of the plaintiffs to act as Power Agent of other plaintiffs could be allowed. In the above case, no permission was sought for the institution of the suit. In the above case, no permission was sought for the institution of the suit. However, this Court has held that it was a curable defect and hence, an application could be filed at any stages of suit and there was nothing improper for Trial Court to allow the same, when there was no prejudice caused to the other side. 20. Similarly, in Uday Shankar Triyar v. Ram Kalewar Prasad Singh and Another ( 2006 (1) SCC 75 ), the Hon`ble Supreme Court has held as follows: “Here again, it has always been recognised that if a plaint is not signed by the plaintiff or his duly authorised agent due to any bonafide error, the defect can be permitted to be rectified either by the Trial Court at any time before judgment, or even by the Appellant Court by permitting appropriate amendment, when such defect comes to its notice during hearing.” 21. In the case on hand, in fact, the Power Agent has filed necessary application in time. But the Trial Court, instead of ordering permission, has sent notice to other side, which, in fact, is not warranted at that stage. Therefore, the procedural irregularity committed by the Court cannot be a ground to non-suit the plaintiffs. Admittedly, as stated above, the application has been filed in right time and permission has also been granted. In fact, while ordering such application, the Court itself has granted permission to the Power Agent to maintain the suit and hence, the defect has been cured. Further, this aspect has not been raised by the defendant during the trial stage and only in the appeal stage, it is canvassed by him as one of the main argument. 22. It is well settled that procedural defects and irregularities, which are curable, should not be allowed to defeat substantive rights or to cause injustice. That apart, when procedural defects are not due to the act of the parties, the parties cannot be made to suffer for such procedural irregularity committed by the Trial Court. Hence, this Court holds that since the Trial Court has already granted permission to the Power Agent in the Interlocutory Application to file the suit and that the defect has already been cured, now the appellant cannot contend that the suit is not maintainable. Accordingly, this point is answered. Point No : 1 23. Hence, this Court holds that since the Trial Court has already granted permission to the Power Agent in the Interlocutory Application to file the suit and that the defect has already been cured, now the appellant cannot contend that the suit is not maintainable. Accordingly, this point is answered. Point No : 1 23. On a careful perusal of the General Power of Attorney executed in favour of P.W.1, K.Sundararaj, by the plaintiffs, it is seen that the recitals of the said document clearly indicate the entire facts with regard to the previous suit and the dismissal of the said suit, which reached finality. The recital further indicates the finding of the previous suit, besides indicates the execution of sale deed in favour of the 1st plaintiff. At the time of executing Power of Attorney, the Power of Attorney was aware of the previous proceedings, the disputes with regard to the suit properties, etc., Of course, the Power of Attorney cannot substitute evidence for the principal but the fact remains that the Power of Attorney can depose facts, which are well exclusively within his knowledge. He has merely spoken about the earlier proceedings, which culminated into dismissal of the suit filed by the defendant, the sale deed executed by the 2nd plaintiff in favour of the 1st plaintiff and subsequent Declaration Deed etc. 24. Of course, Power of Attorney cannot depose for the Principal in respect of the matter which only the Principal can have a personal knowledge and in respect of the same, no one is entitled to be examined. But the fact remains in this case that the Power of Attorney was very well appraised about the previous suits, admission made by the parties in their evidence, finding of the Courts, execution of sale deeds, registration of the sale deeds etc., He has also spoken about these facts in Chief examination. Therefore, now it cannot be contended by the defendant that P.W.1's evidence cannot be given importance. P.W.1, in the entire chief examination, has stated about the previous litigation between the parties, the execution of sale deeds and subsequent Declaration of Deed etc., 25. Therefore, now it cannot be contended by the defendant that P.W.1's evidence cannot be given importance. P.W.1, in the entire chief examination, has stated about the previous litigation between the parties, the execution of sale deeds and subsequent Declaration of Deed etc., 25. It is curious to note that when the appeal was argued before this Court, taking into consideration the submission of the learned counsel for the appellant/ defendant that in declaration deed and power of Attorney Deed, 2nd plaintiff's signature varies and that she has not been examined before the trial Court in order to unravel the truth, this Court has summoned the 2nd plaintiff to give additional evidence and she was examined as P.W.4 wherein she has categorically admitted that she has executed those documents along with 1st plaintiff in favour of one Sundararajan to contest the suit. P.W.4, the 2nd plaintiff, has also admitted the execution of Ex.A19, Declaration Deed in favour of Margabandhu, the 1st plaintiff, asserting the sale in his favour. When the executor herself was testified before this Court wherein she herself admitted about the execution of Power of Attorney and also Declaration Deed Ex.A19 and when nothing could be elicited with regard to the execution of documents, the defendant/appellant at this stage, cannot contend that the evidence rendered by the Power Agent is not permissible. 26. Now, the crux of the issue involved in this case is with regard to previous litigation and rights of the parties. Admittedly, the rights of parties have already been decided in the previous litigation. Even, dehors, the deposition of P.W.1, in view of the subsequent evidence of the 2nd plaintiff, P.W.4, and previous judgments rendered by the Court with regard to the dispute between the parties, this Court is of the view that the contention of the appellant that Power Agent has no right to speak about the execution of documents, has no relevance at all. From a perusal of Ex.A4, the judgment in Second Appeal No.1554 of 2010, filed by the defendant, it is seen that the 1st defendant has filed suit for declaration and permanent injunction in respect of the suit properties on the basis of the Will said to have been executed by late Govinda Babu. In the above suit, it is specifically pleaded by the defendant that the 2nd plaintiff has married Govinda Babu in the year 1979. In the above suit, it is specifically pleaded by the defendant that the 2nd plaintiff has married Govinda Babu in the year 1979. The defendant, having admitted the marriage in the previous suit, cannot now take U turn and contend that the marriage of the 2nd plaintiff with late Govinda Babu has not been performed and the same has not been proved in the manner known to law. 27. Apart from his own admission in the earlier proceedings about the marriage, in paragraph 5 of the Chief examination in the present suit, the defendant has admitted about the marriage of the 2nd plaintiff with Govinda Babu. In the cross examination also, he has asserted that the 2nd plaintiff is the wife of the said Govinda Babu. When the defendant himself has admitted about the marriage and his own witness has spoken about the marriage and the status of the 2nd plaintiff as wife of the said Govinda Babu, now it is too late for the defendant to contend that the marriage of the 2nd plaintiff has not been proved. In fact, in the previous suit, in the pleadings itself, the defendant has pleaded that the 2nd plaintiff is the wife of the said Govinda Babu. The plea put forth by the defendant in the previous litigation that he is the foster son, is also found to be false and the Court did not believe his version and it has been held that since there was a close association between the defendant and the late Govinda Babu, the late Govinda Babu was extending certain privileges to the defendant since he happens to be his brother's son only and not beyond that. Finally, this Court has held that the appellant has failed to prove that he was treated as the foster son by late Govinda Babu. Besides, the Will propounded by the defendant was also rejected by the trial Court. Therefore, the question with regard to the factum of marriage cannot be re-adjudicated in this appeal, particularly, when the defendant himself admitted that the 2nd plaintiff is the wife of his uncle Govinda Babu, and there was ample evidence and admission to prove the same in this case. This point is answered accordingly. Point Nos : 2 and 5: 28. It is the case of the defendant that he is in uninterrupted possession of the suit properties from the year 1975. This point is answered accordingly. Point Nos : 2 and 5: 28. It is the case of the defendant that he is in uninterrupted possession of the suit properties from the year 1975. It is the further case of the defendant that even prior to 1994, the 2nd plaintiff had knowledge and acquiesced to the fact that the defendant is in exclusive possession and enjoyment of the suit properties. While so, as seen from the records, his claim to set up independent title over the property on the basis of the Will was dismissed. The appeal and the second appeal preferred against the dismissal of the said suit were also dismissed. Moreover, the SLP filed by the defendant also ended in dismissal on 23.3.2012, which is evident in Ex.A6. In other words, the defendant's claim of independent title on the basis of the alleged Will has been negatived. 29. That apart, no pleading, whatsoever, was made with regard to adverse possession. To claim adverse possession one should admit title of others whereas in the previous litigation, he has profounded the Will, which is also found to be false, and the above litigation has come to end only in the year 2010. In the meanwhile, under Exs.A7 to A11, Sale Deeds were executed by the 2nd plaintiff transferring the entire suit properties in favour of the 1st plaintiff. Of course, these Sale Deeds were executed during the pendency of the suit. It is settled law that transfer of property during the pendency of the suit is not void ab initio. But it is always subject to the result of pending suit. In the instant case, the transfer of property has taken place only in the year 2005 in the name of the 1st plaintiff. To confirm the above transfer, the 2nd plaintiff has also executed Declaration Deed, which has also been registered, as could be seen from Ex.A19. To substantiate the same, the 2nd plaintiff was examined before this Court and she has also admitted the execution of the said document. Therefore, transfer of title is proved in respect of the suit properties in favour of the 1st plaintiff. At the most, plea of adverse possession as against the 1st plaintiff could be possible that too, only when the 1st plaintiff has become the owner of the suit properties. Therefore, transfer of title is proved in respect of the suit properties in favour of the 1st plaintiff. At the most, plea of adverse possession as against the 1st plaintiff could be possible that too, only when the 1st plaintiff has become the owner of the suit properties. Admittedly, he has become the owner of the suit properties under Exs.A7 to A11 dated 16.11.2005. The suit filed in the year 2001, is within the period of 7 years from the date of purchase. As such, the question of claiming adverse possession over the 1st plaintiff will not arise at all in this case. 30. In any event, to prove the adverse possession, it must be established from the very beginning by the person, who sets up such a plea, as to when his possession became adverse to the true owner and what was the overt act exercised by him over the suit properties and his possession of the suit properties is open, hostile, uninterrupted and peaceful for more than 12 years. In the previous litigation, this Court in Ex.B14, judgment in S.A.No.1554 of 2005, has clearly held that the defendant is in possession of the properties in view of certain privileges extended by his own uncle. That itself clearly indicates the fact that he was allowed to be in possession of the property at the relevant point of time when his uncle was leading a wayward life and that the defendant had been looking after the business affairs. Merely because of entering into possession of the property by a person though it is permissive in nature, his possession will not convert as adverse to the interest of the real owner, particularly, without proving any overt act or hostile attitude over the true owner. In fact, the pleadings of the defendant are bereft of details about the adverse possession. Litigation has started long back as could be seen under Ex.A14. Only to protect his possession, he sought interim injunction and initial possession appears to be permissive in nature. A possession of permissive possession to become adverse, it must be established by cogent and convincing evidence to show hostile animus and possession was adverse to the knowledge of real owner. Insofar as the present case is concerned, absolutely, there is no evidence whatsoever available on record to show that the defendant has perfected his title by adverse possession. 31. A possession of permissive possession to become adverse, it must be established by cogent and convincing evidence to show hostile animus and possession was adverse to the knowledge of real owner. Insofar as the present case is concerned, absolutely, there is no evidence whatsoever available on record to show that the defendant has perfected his title by adverse possession. 31. More so, now the defendant/appellant was in possession and enjoyment only on the basis of the interim order passed by this Court in the previous litigation. Therefore, when the possession was permitted by way of interim order, it cannot be stated that he has perfected his title as against the true owner. Therefore, merely because his possession was long and the same was protected by way of interim orders in earlier applications, it cannot be stated that such possession became adverse to the real owner. When independent title set up by the defendant itself is disbelieved by the Court and the suit filed by him was dismissed, his possession, pursuant to the interim order alone, cannot become adverse as against the real owner. Further, it is to be noted that husband of the 2nd plaintiff died only on 15.12.1992. Only after his death, the 2nd plaintiff inherited the property. In the meanwhile, the defendant has filed the suit in O.S.No.53 of 1994, which went up to the Supreme Court and ultimately, the same ended against him. Therefore, the question of claiming adverse possession by the defendant as against the 2nd plaintiff does not arise at all. 32. It is not the case of the defendant that his possession in the suit properties was adverse as against his uncle also at the relevant time. It is seen that only after the death of his uncle, he set up the Will and propounded the same and set up independent title. After 1994, his possession was protected by the interim orders of this Court. Therefore, such possession case never be an adverse possession to the real owner. Similarly, the defendant was also directed to pay a sum of Rs.5,00,000/- (Rupees Five lakhs only) by this Court for remaining possession of the suit property during the existence of the interim order. All these facts clearly indicate that the defendant's possession howsoever length, will not be adverse to the interest of the true owner. Similarly, the defendant was also directed to pay a sum of Rs.5,00,000/- (Rupees Five lakhs only) by this Court for remaining possession of the suit property during the existence of the interim order. All these facts clearly indicate that the defendant's possession howsoever length, will not be adverse to the interest of the true owner. Hence, the contention of the learned counsel in that regard also cannot be countenanced at all. The Trial Court, after analysing the entire evidence in this regard, has come to the right conclusion in decreeing the suit. 33. That apart, the evidence of D.W.2 and D.W.3 would show that the defendant is in possession of the property and the same is not disputed. But it will not help to prove the plea of adverse possession. In Ex.A4, the judgment passed in earlier Second Appeal, this Court has clearly held that only because of certain privileges extended by his uncle, he was allowed to enjoy the properties at that point of time. 34. It is further to be noted that the 1st defendant's uncle died only in the year 1992. Thereafter, litigation started in the year 1994 and only under the direction given by way of interim orders, he is in possession of the property. It is seen that subsequent to the dismissal of the above suit, the suit property was transferred to the 1st plaintiff in the year 2005 and the present suit has been filed for recovery of the suit property in the year 2011. As such, by no stretch of imagination, his possession became adverse to the real owner. Further more, it is well settled that mere long possession will not be adverse to the true owner. 35. A perusal of the entire evidence and documents makes it clear that the defendant/appellant, taking advantage of the earlier litigation, has successfully managed to be in possession of the property without any rights, whatsoever. It is the second round of litigation with regard to the suit properties. Therefore, without establishing the plea of adverse possession, the defendant has no right, whatsoever in the property. This point is answered accordingly. 36. Yet another contention of the learned counsel for the defendant is that during the pendency of the second appeal, the 1st plaintiff has filed an application being CMP.No.241 of 2008 to implead himself and the said application was resisted by the 2nd plaintiff. This point is answered accordingly. 36. Yet another contention of the learned counsel for the defendant is that during the pendency of the second appeal, the 1st plaintiff has filed an application being CMP.No.241 of 2008 to implead himself and the said application was resisted by the 2nd plaintiff. The 2nd plaintiff also denied execution of the Sale Deed dated 16.11.2005 in Exs.A7 to A11. In the counter affidavit, she has pleaded that the 1st plaintiff, in collusion with Power Agent, K.Sundarraj and taking advantage of her ignorance of Tamil language, read out the agreement clauses and obtained her signatures and that the alleged Sale Deeds are not executed by her with an intention to sell and the same have been created by them. Having taken such plea and made the aforesaid admission in the earlier litigation, now the 2nd plaintiff has joined with the 1st plaintiff and filed the present suit. Therefore, her admission in the previous cases itself would clearly prove that Exs.A7 to A11 are not valid in the eye of law. 37. It is to be noted that admission made by the parties is not a conclusive poof. At the most, it may amount to estoppal. The admission made by the 2nd plaintiff in the counter affidavit in the second appeal also shows that she has already divested the suit property by executing the sale deed. Therefore, any such admission by the 2nd plaintiff, who has no interest in the property at the relevant point of time will not bind the 1st plaintiff. Since the 1st plaintiff has already acquired title of the property at the relevant time, this Court is of the view that any such admission by the 2nd plaintiff, will not invalidate the document. 38. It is well settled that admission is only piece of evidence and can be explained and it will not conclusively bind the parties unless it amounts to estoppal. The value of admission has to be determined keeping in view of the circumstances in which it was made and to whom. The 2nd plaintiff is a widow and after the death of her husband, she has faced several litigations not only from this defendant but also from one G.Ramesh Babu in O.S.No.274 of 1993. Therefore, admission given by her in respect of the properties at the relevant point of time is not a conclusive proof. The 2nd plaintiff is a widow and after the death of her husband, she has faced several litigations not only from this defendant but also from one G.Ramesh Babu in O.S.No.274 of 1993. Therefore, admission given by her in respect of the properties at the relevant point of time is not a conclusive proof. As already stated, at the relevant point of time, she has no title with regard to the suit properties. Therefore, any such admission will not bind the parties, who has no title or interest in the property, which was already sold nor can invalidate the documents. 39. It is further to be noted that the 2nd plaintiff has also executed Ex.A19, Declaration Deed confirming the Sale Deeds executed in favour of the 1st plaintiff. She has also stated in her evidence before the Court that even though the lands were sold to the 1st plaintiff, she having responsibility and liability to clear the Court Proceedings, has caused appearance in the Second Appeal and proceeded with the same. It is stated that she has appeared in the second appeal only to clear the Court proceedings. Further, her explanation in the subsequent deeds itself clearly shows that only to bring an end to litigation, she has filed such affidavit in the second appeal. In any event, such admission itself will not affect the title of the 1st plaintiff. Hence, the contention of the defendant in that regard also, cannot be countenanced. Point No.3: 40. Insofar as the damages are concerned, from a perusal of the evidence of P.W.2 and P.W.3, it is seen that the suit properties are fertile and water fed land and two crops can be raised in a year and the defendant himself admitted that from each acre of land, he will get Rs.5,000/- per yield i.e. for 21 acres of land in come per yield must be around Rs.1,05,000/-. 41. 41. Having regard to the evidence of P.W.2 and P.W.3 and also having regard to the fact there cannot be any certainty in agricultural income and that agricultural produce always depends upon various factors such as rain, market rates etc., This Court, on a perusal of the evidence of P.W.2 and P.W.3 and D.W.1, is of the view that the Trial Court, taking into consideration the two crops per acre, has rightly awarded damages of Rs.1,00,000/- p.a for the entire land from 10.11.2000 till date and thereafter, future damages till the date of delivery of possession. Hence, this Court does not find any infirmity in the order of the trial Court. Accordingly, these points are answered. In the result, the appeal and cross objections are dismissed confirming the judgment and decree dated 11.03.2016 passed by the learned Principal District Judge, Thiruvallur. However, there shall be no order as to costs. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petitions are closed.