S. Padmanabhan, J.

1. Simple question for consideration in the second appeal filed by the first defendant is whether his possession of the suit property for more than 40 years till the institution of the suit along with other portions as full owner under the impression that it belongs to him without being aware that it is part of the land belonging to the respondents (plaintiff and B defendants 2 to 9, who are coowners) will constitute adverse possession capable of acquiring title.

2. Suit property is five cents of land. It is not in dispute that it is A-B-C-D plot in the plan attached to Ext. A2 decree in O. S. No. 323 of 1974 on the file of the Munsiff, Kannur. That was a suit for injunction filed by the predecessors of the respondents against the appellant in relation to the same property. In that case, there was a contention for the plaintiffs that there was permissive occupation of the land for construction of a shop building. Permissive occupation as tenant was found against and the appellant was found m possession on independent claim of title. The suit was dismissed and A. S. No. 155 of 1977 filed against it was also dismissed. It was then that the present suit, O. S.