doctrine of lispendens . When the above mentioned suit was decreed declaring the title of the first plaintiff and his brother Chandan and also a decree for permanent injunction has been granted, it is not open to the present defendant to contend that he has been in possession and enjoyment of the suit property; From 26.02.2001 onwards, the decree for permanent injunction is operating against him. He cannot plead anything against the findings of the court which attained finality. It is also necessary to mention that the above mentioned Murugan, the vendor of the present defendant, filed appeal in A.S.No.40 of 2001 on the file of Sub-Ordinate Court, Dharmapuri and the said appeal was dismissed on 31.10.2011 confirming the findings of the trial court. Therefore, the findings rendered in the earlier proceedings upholding the title and possession of present first plaintiff and his brother, had attained finality on 31.10.2011. In such circumcenters, till 31.10.2011, the defendant is not entitled to claim any adverse possession. There is no plea in the written statement as to when the possession of the defendant had become adverse against the present plaintiff after disposal of A.S.No.40 of 2001. Even assuming the possession of the defendant had become adverse after disposal of A.S.No.40 of 2001, the present suit has been filed in the year 2018 is well within the statutory period (A.S.No.40 of 2001 disposed on 31.10.2011). Therefore, the defendant miserably failed to prove before the courts below, when his possession had become hostile to the rights of the original owner and his hostile possession continued for more than statutory period. Both the courts below, on appreciation of evidence available on record,
