B. Kemal Pasha, J.

1. (1) Whether the period of appellant's possession over the property in question can be 'tacked' with the period of possession of that property by the predecessor-in-interest?

(2) Whether unknown possession can invite adverse possession?

(3) When the rights of the Government over a piece of property had already extinguished in the year 1998 due to the operation of Section 27 of the Limitation Act, can an application on behalf of the possessor for assignment of that property in the year 2003 dis-entitle the possessor to claim adverse possession?

2. The plaintiff in O.S.No.199/2007 of the Principal Munsiff's Court, Kochi is the appellant herein. The suit is one for declaration of the plaintiff's title and possession over the plaint schedule property, for a perpetual injunction restraining the defendants from trespassing into the plaint schedule property and from interfering with the plaintiff's possession and enjoyment of the plaint schedule property, and from committing any waste thereon.

3. The plaint schedule property is shown in the plaint as 17.5 cents of land and the part of building No.18/49 According to the plaintiff, the said 17.5 cents of land forms part of the total extent of one acre and half cent of property. The whole extent of property is lying in various survey numbers. The plaint schedule property is in Sy.No.1166 of the Rameswaram Village, Kochi Taluk. According to the plaintiff, he purchased the whole property in court auction dated 31.10.1989 in E.P. No.112 of 1989 in O.S.No.2/1979 of the Principal Subordinate Judge's Court, Kochi. The sale was confirmed on 22.01.1990 and Ext.A2 sale certificate was also issued to the plaintiff. He has been in possession of the property from 22.01.1990 and has been paying land tax.

4. The plaintiff has been conducting processing and freezing of sea food for export business carried on by him in the name and style as 'M/s Baby Marine International'. At the time of purchase in court auction, the predecessor-in- interest of the property had already constructed compound wall and had put up factory sheds in the property. After the purchase of the property, the plaintiff continued to possess all the same. In the meantime, it was informed that some extent of land coming within the compound wall of the plaintiff's property in Sy.No.1166 is "puzha puramboke". On enquiry, it was revealed that L.C.No.11/67 was booked against the predecessor in title of property, M/s United Industries alleging encroachment, under the Land Conservancy Act. Still, the alleged encroachment was not removed. It is the case of the plaintiff that when L.C. Case was booked in the year 1967 as against the predecessor-in- interest of the plaintiff over the property, the possession of the predecessor-in-interest became adverse to the Government for the period from 1967 onwards. When the plaintiff has acquired the said property through court auction, all the said rights devolved on the plaintiff, and presently, the Government has lost their rights over the property. According to the plaintiff, he has prescriptive title over the property on account of adverse possession and limitation.

5. The defendants contended that the suit is not maintainable since the matter comes under the purview of the Land Conservancy Act. According to the defendants, the Village Officer, Rameswaram has reported that the plaintiff is in illegal possession of 17.584 cents of kayal puramboke with unauthorized construction of buildings, compound walls etc. Out of the same, 10.700 cents of land is within the compound wall and the remaining extent of 6.884 cents of land is outside the compound wall. According to the defendants, the plaintiff has encroached into the portions of the kayal puramboke adjacent to the patta land and reduced it into his possession and therefore, the proceedings under the Land Conservancy Act were initiated. It has also been contended that L.C. Case No.1/2003 has been initiated against the plaintif