K. Harilal, J.

The appellant is the 3rd defendant in O.S.No.419/1999 on the files of the Munsiff's court, Wadakkanchery, as well as the appellant in A.S.No.102/2003 on the files of the Additional District and Sessions Court, (Fast Track Court No. I), Thrissur. The above Original Suit was one for recovery of possession on the strength of title with future mesne profit. The 3rd defendant, inter alia, contended that his title and possession over the property sought to be recovered from him is perfected by adverse possession. After considering the evidence on record, the learned Munsiff decreed the suit as prayed for, granting recovery of possession. Feeling aggrieved, though the appellant had preferred the above Appeal Suit, the learned District Judge also concurred with the findings of the Trial Court and dismissed the appeal. This Regular Second Appeal is filed by the 3rd defendant challenging the concurrent findings of the courts below, on various grounds.

PLEADINGS

2. The plaint averments necessary for disposal of this RSA can be encapsulated as follows: The parties are referred to as in the Original Suit. The 2nd the 3rd plaintiffs are the title holders in possession of plaint 'A' schedule property and their mother Gouriyamma got the property by virtue of Ext.A2 partition deed dated 15-02-1997. The defendants 1 to 3 are in possession and enjoyment of item numbers 1 to 3 respectively of 'B' schedule property. 'B' Schedule item No.3 having an extent of 42.35 cents of land in Sy.No.1145 of Kondazhi Village is a part of 'A' schedule property. The 'B' schedule property is lying adjacent on the northern and eastern side of 'A' schedule property which belongs to the defendants. According to the plaintiffs, the 3rd defendant encroached into the plaint 'A' schedule property and gradually took possession of some portion of 'A' schedule property on the eastern side which is shown in the plaint as 'B' schedule (item No.3). On 25/11/98, the plaintiffs sent a lawyer's notice requiring the 3rd defendant to surrender 'B' schedule item No.3 with mesne profit. But, there was no response from the 3rd defendant.

3. The 3rd defendant filed a written statement contending that he is in exclusive possession and enjoyment over item No.3 of 'B' schedule property since 1980 and the said property is lying together as a single plot with his remaining properties. The plaintiffs have to prove their title. The existence of 'B' schedule as narrated in the plaint is also denied. 'B' schedule item No.3 does not form part of plaintiffs' 'A' schedule property; whereas it forms part of his remaining property which is in his possession since 1980. Alternatively, it is also contended that even if 'B' schedule item No.3 belongs to the plaintiffs, the plaintiffs' right in that property has been lost by adverse possession and limitation, by the long continuous, open and uninterrupted possession and enjoyment of the 3rd defendant.

THE EVIDENCE

4. The 1st plaintiff was examined as PW1 and Exts.A1 to A7 were marked. Defendants were examined as DWs.1 to 3 and Exts.B1 to B7 were marked.. The commission report and rough plan were marked as Exts. C1 and C1(a).

THE FINDINGS UNDER CHALLENGE

5. The prime issue was, whether the defendants have perfected their title over plaint 'B' schedule property by way of adverse possession? After considering the entire evidence on record, the learned Munsiff, on the above issue, found that the plaintiffs have right and title over the plaint 'A' schedule property as per Ext.A2 partition deed and they are having valid title over the entire 'A' schedule property. Even though, the defendants pleaded possessory title over 'B' schedule properties relying on the law of adverse possession and limitation, the learned Munsiff found that since there is no specific pleadings or proof satisfying the requirements to claim the right of adverse possession and limitation, they are not entitled to get the right of adverse possession. The defendants are in