The burden of proof is on the defendants to establish adverse possession when the plaintiff's title and possession of the land are admitted.

1. The pieces of land bearing Survey Numbers 391/7,3918 and 391/9 of Parur Village belong to and are in the possession of the plaintiff. At the south of them is S. No. 391/6 belonging to the defendants and in their joint possession; and at the west is S.391/10 which the defendants hold as tenants of Desiyogam Madhom. Plaintiff complains that the fence at the boundary between his land and that in the defendants possession has been shifted a little into the plaintiff's property and thereby an encroachment has been committed by the defendants which over the entire length of the boundary at the west and the south, amounted to about 11/2 cents in the aggregate. This suit is to remove the encroachment with consequential reliefs. The defendants denied the trespass and claimed, if the suit property be found to be encroachment, the plaintiff has lost tittle thereto by their adverse possession. The Munsiff held:

"Granting that the title deeds of the plaintiff and Exts. A and Al prove his title, the further hurdle of proof of possession within 12 years preceding the suit remains to be crossed. That is not done",

and therefore dismissed the suit. The Subordinate Judge affirmed the same. Hence this second appeal by the plaintiff.

2. Ext. A is the report and Ext. Al the plan prepared by a Commissioner deputed to make a local inspection and report regarding the alleged encroachment. They show that a very narrow bit of land, which at its broadest point is 6 links in width and on an average is only about 2 links wide, has been encroached by the defendants and annexed to their possession. Pw. 2 has sworn that the encroachment has been gradual. Admittedly, in between the two properties there is no permanent boundary protection, but is only a temporary fence put up annually. It is freely conceded by the defendants that the plaintiff is the owner of S. No. 391/7, 8 and 9 in possession thereof except the narrow bit at the boundary forming the disputed property.

3. The survey and demarcation of lands by the State have a purpose; they are intended to identify the different pieces of land so as to regulate the rights of landholders. Bights in land will normally be presumed to be in terms of the survey divisions. When a person is admitted or found to be in possession of a survey division, the presumption is of such possession being extensive with the survey division concerned; and he is not to be constrained to prove his possession of every inch of it. It is then for the person who asserts the contrary to prove by positive evidence that a defined portion thereof is in his adverse possession and has been lost to the owner thereof. If the court finds the same, the Land Records will be corrected accordingly sub-dividing the original survey division so as to demarcate each holding with separate survey number.

4. The plaintiffs title and possession of S. of No. 391 /7, 8 & 9 having been admitted the plaintiff is to be presumed to have legal possession of those survey divisions in their entirety, and the onus is on the defendants to prove that they have been in adverse possession of a definite portion thereof for more than 12 years prior to the institution of the suit. In the language of the Privy Council in Mt. Allah Rakhi v. Shah Maliommad Abdul Rahim (AIR. 1934 PC. 77)

"Where there is no doubt that the title to the lands is in the plaintiffs the onus is on the defendants to prove the adverse possession relied on".

The present is not a case of the plaintiff being out of possession of his property, but the defendants claiming to have encroached on his possession. The possession of the plaintiff of his land is admitted for its most part by the defendants themselves who claim adverse possession and prescriptive title over the disputed portion thereof. It must then be on the defendants to prove the same. I may at once say that the defendants have not made out their possession of the disputed property for 12 years preceding the suit. The courts below seem