thereby, a presumption has to be drawn that the signature and recitals found therein are that of the executor Govindasamy Chettiar. Equally, a presumption has to be drawn in respect of the consent letter, Ex.B3 also considering the age of the said document, however, the courts below have erred in disbelieving those documents as genuine without properly appreciating the same. The defendant and his father had been in possession of the suit property from the year 1963 and thereby, the defendant had perfected his title by adverse possession and the suit filed belatedly, is hopelessly barred by limitation. Even according to the plaintiffs, the defendant had trespassed into the suit property during the 3rd week of January 2015, however, the application for amendment to include the prayer of recovery of possession was filed by the plaintiffs only on 1.8.2015, which is beyond the period of 6 months prescribed under Section 6 of the Specific Relief Act barring a suit to be filed by the dispossessed person. The courts below have erred in declaring the title and possession of the plaintiff in respect of the suit property based on revenue records.
