The defendants in the suit filed by the respondent for recovery of possession are the appellants. The plaintiff is the sister of the first defendant. Defendant No.2 is the son of the first defendant and defendant No.3 is the wife of defendant No.2. The trial court decreed the suit, which was confirmed in appeal. The only contention raised by the appellants is that they have perfected title by adverse possession and limitation and, therefore, the suit is liable to be dismissed.

2. The plaint schedule property is having an extent of 3 cents. An extent of 6 cents of land including the plaint schedule property jointly belonged to Karambi (the plaintiff) and her brother Ayyer, as per Ext.A1 assignment deed of the year 1963. In 1998, as per Ext.A2, Ayyer, the brother of the plaintiff, relinquished his half right in respect of the plaint schedule property in favour of the plaintiff. In Ext.A2 it is recited that out of the total extent of six cents, an extent of three cents of land was transferred in favour of the daughter of Ayyer by the plaintiff and Ayyer and that by that assignment deed half right of Ayyer in the six cents of land was really satisfied. However, since technically Ayyer would have half right in the plaint schedule property, he relinquished his right in the plaint schedule property in favour of the plaintiff. Thus the plaintiff claimed title to the plaint `A' schedule property.

3. The contention of the plaintiff in the plaint is that the first defendant requested the plaintiff to permit the former to reside in the building situated in the plaint schedule property and permission was granted. It is also stated that there was an oral undertaking that the first defendant would vacate the building within a short time and that at best, he would remain there only till he constructs a building in another property. It is stated that even though the first defendant constructed a building in his own property he did not vacate the house in the plaint schedule property. A notice was issued to the first defendant to vacate the house, but he refused. In the written statement filed by the defendants, they denied that they are residing in the house as permitted by the plaintiff. It is stated that the first defendant constructed the house and has been residing in that house for more than thirty years. The further statement in the written statement is thus:

"Actually the defendants have been in possession of the plaint schedule property continuously, peaceably, openly without any interruption for more than 30 years. The building in the plaint schedule property was constructed by the first defendant and he has been paying the tax of the building also. So the plaintiff has no right over the plaint schedule property."

4. Counsel for the appellants contended that Ext.A1 does not disclose that the house was available at the time when the transfer was made in favour of the plaintiff and Ayyer and that would lead to the inference that the house was constructed by the first defendant. If immovable property is transferred, all improvements attached to the earth would also stand transferred to the assignee. It is not necessary to mention each and every item of improvements in the schedule of the assignment deed. Even if the existence of a house is not mentioned in Ext.A1, it cannot be said that the plaintiff has no title to the house in the plaint schedule property. As per Section 3 of the Transfer of Property Act, the expression "attached to the earth" means rooted in the earth, as in the case of trees and shrubs; imbedded in the earth, as in the case of walls or buildings; or attached to what is so imbedded for the permanent beneficial enjoyment of that to which it is attached. Section 8 of the Transfer of Property Act provides that:

"Unless a different intention is expressed or necessarily implied, a transfer of property passes forthwith to the transferee all the interest which the transferor is then capable of passing in the property