The main legal point established in the judgment is the recognition and application of adverse possession as a means of acquiring title to property, as well as the principle that a break in continuity of possession does not affect the acquisition of title through adverse possession.

1. S. A. 595 of 1961 arising from O. S.304 of 1953 is by the first defendant therein who is the assignee¬decree-holder in O. S.187 of 1121 and S. A. 871 of 1961 arising from O. S.406 of 1953 is by defendants 2 and 3 therein, and they raise the question, whether two properties which originally belonged to one Ramacha Kurien are attachable in execution of the decree in O. S.187 of 1121.

2. The bare facts may be stated, first with reference to O. S.304 of 1953. The decree in O. S.187 of 1121 was obtained by the second defendant against Thomas, a son of Kurien, and the properties were attached as belonging to Thomas. Kurian had three more sons, Varghese, Mathen and Chacko. In the year 1086, he made a partition of his properties among his sons by Ext. III, by which the suit property was allotted to Varghese. The plaintiffs are the widow and children of Varghese. There is a provision in Ext. III, that Varghese should pay a sum of Rs. 148/-to Chako within one year and that on default, the latter was to take possession of the suit property and enjoy the same. According to the plaintiffs, Varghese made payment and had been in possession of the property and after him the plaintiffs are in possession, and according to the first defendant Varghese did not pay Chacko, Chacko took over the property, and afterwards transferred it to Kurian in the year 1091 and Kurien sold it to Thomas in the year 1099 and his heirs defendants 3 to 9 are in possession.

3. Chacko's widow and children had sued the heirs of Kurien in O. S.129 of 1110 with respect to the properties allotted to Chacko, the suit property being item 2 of B Schedule in that suit. Chacko's original title was upheld. To the attachment of the suit property, the claim preferred by the plaintiffs was dismissed and so they instituted O. S.304 to set aside the order dismissing the claim. The two courts below have held, that the property belonged to Thomas; while the. trial court dismissed the suit on that ground, the appellate court held that the plaintiffs have established their title by adverse possession.

4. In this court, learned counsel for the first defendant contested the finding of the lower court, that possession of the property had been with Varghese and his heirs, the plaintiffs. Going through the evidence, it is all one way. The plaintiffs called witnesses to speak to their possession and to the possession of Varghese. pws. 2, 3 and 4 are independent witnesses and neighbours of the suit property. Their evidence which has been accepted by the judge, cannot be discarded simply on the ground, that in cross-examination with respect to other properties allotted to Chacko, they said that Chacko had been in possession although Chacko died long ago. As against their evidence, the only counter-evidence was that of dw.1, the first defendant. The Additional Judge in appeal has also referred to Ext. B the decree in O. S.347 of 1121 obtained by the third defendant, the son of Thomas against the first plaintiff, for recovery of possession on the basis of an alleged lease; ultimately the lease was found against. Ext. M series, tax receipts, support the plaintiffs and they cover the period of 1106 to 1123 M. E. The first defendant has not been able to produce even copies of thandapers to prove any payment of tax by Thomas. The evidence being all one way, we hold, agreeing with the judge that Varghese and after his death the plaintiffs have been in possession of the property all the time. There is no reason to think, in the absence of a special case for the first defendant, that Varghese had been out of possession for some time soon after the year 1087, during which Chacko or those claiming under him had been in possession; his case was, that pursuant to Ext. III Varghese lost possession after the period of one year stipulated in Ext. III. This is not proved. On the above grounds we are satisfied that Varghese has been in possession. Such possession as against the true owner entitled to