the plaintiffs' claim on the ground of ouster as pleaded by the defendant not proved, also held that the plea of ouster as an alternative, merely relied on the fact that, after the dismissal of the earlier suit filed by the plaintiffs, about 12 years passed without the plaintiffs taking any steps to file a fresh suit. This delay allegedly allowed the defendant to enjoy the property without interference and to have her name entered into the revenue records. However, such entry is not sufficient to assert title over the suit land and does not amount to ouster, nor does it establish title by adverse possession in favour of the defendant, especially when there is no requisite proof of ouster. Furthermore, the earlier suit was dismissed for non-prosecution and not on its merits. Additionally, the injunction order obtained by the defendant does not confirm absolute title. The reasons given by the trial court for dismissing the suit are not sustainable. Likewise, the defendant failed to prove the plea of res judicata or the extinguishment of the plaintiffs' rights. Accordingly, the trial court's findings were set aside, and the appeal was allowed by granting the plaintiffs a 2/3rd share in the suit property.
