The main legal point established in the judgment is the requirement to prove adverse possession and limitation in property disputes, and the burden of proof on the party claiming adverse possession.

1. Defendant in O.S.124/1984 on the file of the Munsiff Court, Muvattupuzha is the appellant herein. The suit was originally filed for injunction and subsequently amended for declaration of title and possession and injunction and later after remanded by the appellate court earlier, amended for recovery of possession on the strength of title. The case of the plaintiffs in the plaint was that, the plaint schedule property belonged to the original first plaintiff, who is the mother of the second plaintiff, who got the same as per Ext.A1 partition deed No.612/1922. The plaint schedule along with other portions having an extent of 501/2 cents on the northern side was allotted to the first plaintiff as B schedule to the partition deed and the remaining 501/2 cents on the southern side was allotted to be share of first plaintiff's sister Aley, who is the mother of the defendant as C schedule to the document. The total extent of the property so allotted was having an extent of one acre and one cent comprised in Survey No.778/15. While so, first plaintiff and Aley sold 83 cents of property out of the said one acre and one cent, excluding 18 cents belonged to the first plaintiff to Thiruvalla Catholic Diocese as per Ext.A4 sale deed No.3010/1115 M.E. The remaining portion was with the first plaintiff after the sale and that portion was shown as plaint schedule property in the plaint. It was demarcated with well defined boundaries and defendant is having properties on the southern and western side of the plaint schedule property. They were old boundaries separating the plaintiff's property with the defendant's properties. The southern side property of the defendant is lying on a lower level than the plaint schedule property and the western side property is separated by a water channel, on the northern side there is a compound wall and on the eastern side there is a thondu as boundaries. Plaintiffs had stored some rubles and soil. While so, the defendant expressed his willingness to purchase the plaint schedule property, for which they were not amenable. Thereafter they were on logger heads as well. While so on 17.03.1984 the defendant cut one teak tree from the plaint schedule property without the consent of the plaintiffs and made hasty attempts to trespass into the plaint schedule property and reduce the same into his possession, that prompted them to file the suit.

2. The defendant filed written statement and additional written statements on 27.08.1984, 17.08.1985 and 17.03.1989 respectively contending as follows :

The suit is not maintainable and the plaintiffs have no cause of action to file the suit. Plaintiffs have never been in possession of the plaint schedule property. The defendant and his predecessor are in possession and enjoyment of the plaint schedule property from 1097 M.E. onwards. The first plaintiff sold her entire property to Thiruvalla Catholic Diosces as per sale deed No.30.10.1115 M.E. Even at the time of executing the document of partition deed No.614/1922, the plaint schedule property was lying contiguous with the western property in survey No.778/12 AB, 778/14 and 778/13 within a common boundary. It was not demarcated with well defined boundaries as alleged by the plaintiffs. The property of the defendant and the plaint schedule property are lying contiguously as a single plot within well defined boundaries. The extent of the property shown as 18 cents is not correct. It will be more than 50 cents. There is no water channel on the western side of the plaint schedule property as alleged by the plaintiffs. It was a small thodu in the property of the defendant created for the purpose of flow of natural water through it. There was no separate boundary wall on the northern side of the plaint schedule property, but it forms part in continuation of the compound wall put up by the defendant on the northern side of his residential property. Plaintiffs have not stored any building materials in the property. It was