as the plaintiff has not completed 12 years prescribed for adverse possession. Further, even according to the plaintiff, he was dispossessed and therefore, he added the relief of recovery of possession. When a person claims right by prescribing title by adverse possession and before that right was declared by the Court, if he is dispossessed, either he has to file the suit under Section 6 of the Specific Relief Act or file the suit for recovery of possession by proving his title to the suit property. Admittedly, his title has been negatived in O.S.No.25 of 1968 and on that ground also, the court below has rightly rejected the plaint. Further, as per judgment reported in AIR 1997 SC 1307 (Hanamanthappa and others v.Chandrasekharappa and others), the plaintiff represented the plaint, after making addition in the plaint and it can be treated to be a fresh plaint and admitted the plaint was represented in the year 1994 before the Sub-Court, Poonamallee and in the absence of any appeal on the date of dispossession as mentioned in the plaint, the plaintiff cannot ask for declaration that he has perfected to an adverse possession and therefore, the relief prayed for declaration by prescription of title by adverse possession is also barred and the relief of declaration is also not maintainable, as the plaintiff has no title and the same was negatived in O.S.No.25 of 1968. The points for consideration are answered against the appellant as indicated above.
