plaintiff are relating to the plaintiff's residential house and not relating to the suit property. He further submitted that the plaintiff has claimed ownership over the suit property through Ex.A1 and Ex.A2, but at the same time, he has taken a plea of adverse possession also. He further submitted that the plaintiff cannot take inconsistent plea and on that ground alone, the suit has to be dismissed. He further submitted that since there was a serious dispute with regard to the title over the suit property, the plaintiff ought to have filed a suit for declaration of his title, but he has filed a bare injunction suit and the suit is liable to be dismissed. He further submitted that as per the Commissioner's Report and rough plan, the suit property is situated in front of the defendants' house and hence, the same is being used by the defendants as front yard and also as pathway. He further submitted that taking into consideration of the aforesaid facts, the trial court has rightly dismissed the suit, but the first appellate court, without considering the aforesaid facts, has allowed the first appeal and decreed the suit and hence, he prayed to allow the second appeal and set aside the decree and judgment passed by the first appellate court. In support of his contention, he relied upon the decision in Venkatachalam and another Vs.Nallathambi reported in 2013 (4) CTC 45.
