The main legal point established in the judgment is that adverse possession requires open assertion of hostile title, exclusive possession, and knowledge of such assertion. The burden of proving ouster by denial of the plaintiff's title to his knowledge is on the party claiming adverse possession.

1. The 1st defendant in O.S. 709 of 1959 on the file of the Munsiff's Court, Trivandrum is the appellant before us.

2. The plaintiff - respondent brought the aforesaid suit for partition and separate possession of her alleged 1/3 share in the plaint schedule property after redemption of a usufructuary mortgage dated 13-9-1918 evidenced by Ext. P4 on payment of the proportionate mortgage amount to the 1st. defendant. The courts below have upheld the plaintiff's right to 5/32 shares in the plaint schedule property and passed a preliminary decree for partition and redemption entitling the plaintiff to recover possession of her aforesaid share on deposit of the proportionate mortgage amount and value of improvements. In this second appeal the only contention raised before us on behalf of the appellant is that the plaintiff's right to recover possession of her share of the suit property had become extinguished by adverse possession and limitation and that the suit ought to have been dismissed as barred under Art.144 of the Limitation Act, 1908.

3. The plaint schedule property belonged to one Vappu Kochika who died leaving four sons Vava Kunju, Moideen Kunju, Adima and Sayed Mohammed. Vava Kunju died in 1052 and his widow released her rights in the property in favour of Adima in 1079. Adima died in 1083 leaving the plaintiff and her mother as his heirs. The plaintiff's mother died in 1110. Moideen Kunju died, in 1084 leaving two sons Asanaru and Abdul Kader. Vava Kunju and Sayed Mohammed died issueless. It has to be noted that parties are all Muslims governed by the ordinary Muslim Law.

4. The plaint schedule property consists of an extent of 88 cents. On the death of Vappu Kochika the suit property devolved on his four sons and it is common case before us that the four brothers were in joint possession of the same. After the death of Vava Kunju, Moideen Kunju and Adima, the last surviving son Sayed Mohammed executed a usufructuary mortgage over the plaint property to one Neelakantan

Ummini for 350 fs. under Ext. P3 dated 6-12-1911. The document recites that out of the consideration of 350fs. 300 fs. was taken for discharging a prior debt borrowed for the purpose of meeting the funeral expenses of Moideen Kunju and 35 fs. for meeting the expenses of clearing the jungly growth in the self-same property. The balance of 15 fs. was for meeting the expenses of the document. Subsequently, under Ext. P4 dated 13-9-1918 Sayed Mohammed executed another usufructuary mortgage over the property to Alexander and Theresa for 700 fs. It is seen recited in the document that the mortgage amount had been already advanced by the mortgagees to enable the mortgagor to redeem the prior mortgage evidenced by Ext, P3, and that redemption of that mortgage had already been effected by Sayed Mohammed with such funds. The plaint property thus came into possession of Alexander and Theresa as mortgagees. They subsequently assigned their mortgage rights to one Solomon under Ext. Dl dated 11-7-1921. The aforesaid Solomon assigned his mortgage rights over the eastern section of the property consisting of 48 cents to one Thresia John D'cruz under Ext. D2 dated 17.9.1938 and by a separate transaction of the same date his mortgage rights over the western 40 cents were assigned to one Raman Sankaran.

5. On 19-6-1939 Asanaru and Abdul Kader, sons of Moideen Kunju, describing themselves as the Jenmis of the property, obtained a release of the mortgage right over the eastern section of 48 cents from Thresia John D'cruz under Ext. D3 on payment of 700 fs. being the mortgage amount and value of improvements due to her. On the same date Asanaru and Abdul Kader executed an Otti kuzhikanam deed evidenced by Ext. D-4 in favour of the 1st defendant purporting to mortgage the entire-extent of 82 cents for 2100 fs. It is stated in the document that the properties which originally belonged to their grandfather Vappu Kochika had devolved by succession on the executants and t