Continuous and uninterrupted possession with knowledge of the true owner for over 12 years establishes adverse possession, barring claims of forcible dispossession when unproven.

JUDGMENT :

H.P.SANDESH, J.

1. Heard the learned counsel for the appellants and the learned counsel for the respondents.

2. This matter is listed for admission. This second appeal is filed against the concurrent finding. The plaintiffs in the original suit in O.S.No.166/2007 pleaded that the land was granted in favour of the plaintiff and also pleaded that they have dispossessed and also entitled for the relief of possession and defendant took the specific defense that from 1984 onwards they are in possession of the property with the knowledge of the plaintiffs. Hence, it amounts to an adverse possession and additional issue was also framed as whether the 2^nd defendant proves that adverse possession in S.No.235/1 measuring 0.50 acres of land of plaint schedule property since from 24^th March 1986 and also framed another additional issue whether the suit of the plaintiff is bad for mis-joinder of defendant No.3.

3. The Trial Court having taken note of the pleading and the defense of the defendant framed the issues and allowed the parties to lead evidence. The 3^rd plaintiff has been examined as P.W.1 and got marked Ex.P.1 to Ex.P.15. On the other side defendant Nos.1 and 3 examined as D.W.1 and D.W.2 and 6 witnesses are examined as D.W.3 to D.W.8 and got marked Ex.D.1 to Ex.D.59. The Trial Court having considered the pleadings of the parties and also the evidence, comes to the conclusion that plaintiffs are the owners of the ‘A’ schedule property. However, comes to the conclusion that with regard to the forcible dispossession of plaintiff from suit schedule property by answering issue Nos.2 and 3 and answered issue No.4 in coming to the conclusion that defendants are in adverse possession and so also answered issue No.5 as affirmative and comes to the conclusion that plaintiffs are not entitled for any relief as sought and dismissed the suit in coming to the conclusion that adverse possession claimed by the defendant is proved.

4. Being aggrieved by the judgment of the Trial Court and also the reasoning, an appeal is filed in R.A.No.5/2015. The First Appellate Court having considered the material available on record, formulated the point whether the Trial Court justified in dismissing the suit of the plaintiff and whether it requires interference of this Court. The First Appellate Court having re-assessed the material available on record, particularly taking into note of the admission on the part of P.W.1 that neither the plaintiff nor their father were permitted the defendants to occupy the shed situated in the suit land and contend that plaintiff’s uncle who permitted the defendants to occupy the shed situated in the suit property and also taken note of the crux of the issue whether they are permissive possession of the suit schedule property measuring 1 acre and 0.50 acres respectively and whether the defendants are in adverse possession of the suit property against the plaintiffs for a period of more than 12 years and the same has been discussed in detail by the First Appellate Court and comes to the conclusion that the theory of permissive possession has not been proved. On the other hand defendants have proved that they are in possession of the property with the knowledge of the plaintiff since the plaintiff who has been examined as P.W.1 categorically admitted that the coconut and Areca nuts in the suit schedule property are aged about 15 years and the said coconut and Areca plants are raised by the defendants and the said admission was also taken note of in paragraph No.35 of the First Appellate Court judgment and comes t