This appeal and cross objection are preferred by the plaintiffs, and defendants 2 and 3 respectively. The suit is one for recovery of possession on the strength of title. The suit was dismissed by the trial court against which the plaintiffs are in appeal. The cross objection relates to the finding on an issue against defendants 2 and 3.

2. The basic facts are not in dispute. The plaint schedule property has an extent of 1.68 hectares. The property was held under Kanam right by one Pallath Kanna Tharakan. One Pallakkal family took the property on lease under the said Thakaran. For arrears of rent, os 167/1950 of the Munsiff's court, Perinthalmanna was filed and in execution of the decree the leasehold right was sold and was purchased by one Mammadkutty. As per sale Deed No. 86/1966, Mammadkutty sold the property to one Achutha Tharakan. The said Achutha Tharakan gave oral lease to one Amu Animal. while so, as per Ext.A1 sale Deed of the year 1966, one Raman alias Appu Tharakan who is the husband of the first plaintiff and father of plaintiffs 2 and 3 purchased the rights of Achutha Tharakan viz. the lessor's right. The lessee Ammu Ammal sold her rights to the second defendant and one Muhammad under Ext.B1 Assignment Deed. The rights of Muhammad was purchased by the third defendant under Ext.62 Assignment Deed. Thus the lessee's right became vested with defendants 2 and 3. On the death of Raman alias Appu Tharakan, the legal heirs viz. the plaintiffs have instituted the suit for recovery of possession on the strength of title.

3. Defendants 2 and 3 are the contesting defendants. The other defendants remained ex parte. Though defendants 2 and 3 admit the derivation of title of either parties, they set up better title in themselves on the basis of Ext.B3 Purchase certificate dated 14.10.1982 obtained in the name of the second defendant. Thus, they challenge the title of the plaintiffs and their right to recover possession. Yet another defence set up is a plea of adverse possession and limitation.

4. The trial court found the title of the plaintiffs. However, the plea of adverse possession and limitation was upheld. Accordingly, the suit was dismissed. Hence, the appeal by the plaintiffs. The cross objection filed by defendants 1 and 2 relates to the finding on the issue of title.

5. Heard Sri. T. Sethumadhavan, learned senior counsel for the appellants-plaintiffs and Sri. T. Krishnanunni, learned senior counsel for the respondents-defendants 2 and 3.

6. As noticed supra, the derivation of rights of either parties are not in dispute. The better title as against the plaintiffs is claimed by defendants 2 and 3 on the strength of Ext.B3 Purchase certificate dated 14.10.1982 obtained by them. As found by the trial court, no notice was issued to the land owner before issuance of the purchase certificate. So also the lease based on which defendants 2 and 3 obtained purchase certificate is in the year 1966; by virtue of section 74 of the Kerala Land Reforms Act, 1963, there is a prohibition on creation of tenancy. Hence it needs no elaboration to hold that Ext.B3 purchase certificate obtained by defendants 2 and 3 is of no avail. The title of the plaintiffs is not under challenge on any other grounds. The finding of the trial court regarding the title of the plaintiffs is only liable to be affirmed and I do so.

7. The trial court has dismissed the suit upholding the plea of adverse possession. The trial court has upheld the plea solely on the finding that defendants 2 and 3 are in continuous possession from the year 1970 onwards. The finding of the trial court is ex facie unsustainable in law. Having claimed their rights as lessee, the plea of adverse possession is obviously untenable. The lack of hostile animus in possessing the property and acknowledgment of the lessor's title are intrinsic in a claim of possession as a lessee. Animus Possedendi to hold adversely against the owner, is a necessary ingredient of adverse possession. W