(1) Does the term 'right' used in Section 27 of the Limitation Act, 1963 denote 'the right to recover possession' of the immovable property, in a suit under Article 65?

(2) Whether the 'right' used in Section 27 of the Limitation Act, 1963, includes 'title' also?

(3) Can the extinguishment of the 'right' under Section 27 of the Limitation Act, 1963, confer title on the person in adverse possession of the immovable property?

(4) Can adverse possession be used as a 'sword' or as a 'shield' only?

2. Challenging the concurrent findings entered by the Munsiff's Court, Kochi in O.S. No. 414/2010 followed by those of the Subordinate Judge's Court, Kochi in A.S. No.18/2013, the plaintiffs have come up in Second Appeal.

3. The suit is one for declaration that the plaintiffs have perfected their title over plaint B schedule property by virtue of their exclusive, open, continuous and uninterrupted possession and occupation as of right for more than 15 years against the lawful title of the defendants, and also for a perpetual injunction. The plaintiffs have also claimed for a declaration that Ext.B10 partition deed is not binding on the exclusive possession, ownership and enjoyment of the plaintiffs over plaint B schedule property.

4. Plaint A schedule item is 5.250 cents in survey No. 259/1 of the Fort Kochi village. Plaint B schedule item is the northern room occupied by the plaintiffs and the property having an extent of one cent in which the said room is situated.

5. The 2nd plaintiff is the daughter of the 1st plaintiff. Late Simon Vincent is the father of the 1st plaintiff. He has altogether 7 children including the 1st plaintiff, the 1st defendant and the 2nd defendant.

6. Late Simon Vincent along with his wife had executed Ext.B8 gift deed dated 16.02.1993 in respect of the plaint A schedule property in favour of defendants 1 and 2, whereby he gifted plaint A schedule property and the building thereon to defendants 1 and 2. According to the plaintiffs, they were not aware of the execution of the gift deed till 17.07.1994. Simon Vincent died on 15.06.1994. After the rituals in connection with the death, defendants 1 and 2 propounded Ext.B8 gift deed on 17.07.1994, claimed absolute title over plaint A schedule property and the building thereon and demanded the plaintiffs to vacate the portion of the building and the property occupied by the plaintiffs.

7. On such demand, the plaintiffs were not willing to vacate the building and property and at the same time, they moved to the plaint B schedule item and started residing there. Still, the plaintiffs are occupying plaint B schedule item. According to the plaintiffs, they have perfected their title through adverse possession and limitation over plaint B schedule property and thereby they have sought for a decree for declaration. It has also been pleaded that defendants 1 and 2, without the knowledge and consent of the plaintiffs, had executed Ext.B10 partition deed dated 08.07.2008, thereby partitioning the building and property into two halves and allotting one such share each to defendants 1 and 2. The plaint B schedule item being occupied by the plaintiffs comes within the portion allotted to the 1st defendant through Ext.B10.

8. The defendants filed a joint written statement contending, inter alia, as follows:- The first plaintiff was given in marriage in the year 1964 to one Joselin Kunnel and after marriage, they were permitted to reside in one room of the family house situated in plaint A schedule. Subsequently, the husband of the first plaintiff died and within no time, she married another man named Mohanan. The second plaintiff is born to the first plaintiff through the said Mohanan. On humanitarian consideration, the plaintiffs were permitted to occupy one room in the building. It is admitted that still one room in the building is being occupied by the plaintiffs. According to the defendants, they are taking steps to evict the plaintiffs from the plaint schedule properties. T