Party pleading adverse possession must raise clear plea.

Pappayammal, appellant herein, filed a suit for partition and separate possession against the defendants 1 and 2 and the said suit was dismissed. Aggrieved by the said dismissal, she filed an appeal before the lower appellate Court, which, in turn, confirmed the same and dismissed the appeal. Hence, this Second Appeal, as against the concurrent judgments.

2. The case of the plaintiff is as follows:

One Kuppanna Gounder purchased two items of the suit property under Ex.B-1, dated 14.12.1932, and Ex.B-2, dated 19.07.1934 respectively. The said Kuppanna Gounder had two wives, namely, Muthammal and Sellammal. He got a son through his first wife, Muthammal, by name Duraisamy Gounder. After the death of Muthammal, Kuppanna Gounder married Sellammal, the second defendant, through whom, the first defendant Palanisamy was born. The said Kuppanna Gounder died on 30.07.1939, leaving behind his son Duraisamy Gounder, born through his first wife Muthammal, and the second wife Sellammal, the second defendant, and her son Palanisamy, the first defendant. The plaintiff Pappayammal is the wife of the said Duraisamy Gounder. In the year 1956, there was a partition through the deed Ex.B-22, in which some properties were allotted to Duraisamy Gounder. Thereafter, he settled the same in favour of his wife Pappayammal, the plaintiff, on 04.09.1962, through the settlement deed Ex.B-26. However, the suit properties were not partitioned then. Later, Duraisamy Gounder died. After his death, the suit properties were in joint possession and enjoyment, both by the plaintiff and the defendants 1 and 2. The plaintiff made a request to the defendants 1 and 2 for partition of the suit properties. The said request was turned down. Hence, the suit for partition and separate possession.

3. The case of the defendants is as follows:

Palanisamy, the first defendant, is the son of second defendant, namely, Sellammal, who is the second wife of Kuppanna Gounder. Since the second defendant was married to Kuppanna Gounder as second wife, the suit properties 1 and 2 were handed over to her, by way of family arrangement, towards her maintenance. After the death of Kuppanna Gounder, the second defendant continued to be in possession of the said properties and has been paying kists. She got patta in her name in the year 1971. Since the said properties were allotted to the second defendant for her maintenance in the family arrangement, they were not included both in the partition deed, Ex.B-22, dated 30.07.1956, and in the settlement deed, Ex.B-26, dated 04.09.1962. As such, the second defendant is entitled for the enlargement of her absolute right, as per Section 14 (1) of the Hindu Succession Act, in pursuance of family arrangement as well as adverse possession.

4. On the basis of the above pleadings, necessary issues were framed. During the course of trial, on behalf of the plaintiff, Exs.A-1 and A-2 were marked and the plaintiff was examined herself as P.W.1. On the side of the defendants, second defendant was examined as D.W.1; first defendant was examined as D.W.2 and two other witnesses as D.Ws.3 and 4. On their side, Exs.B-1 to B-26 were marked.

5. The trial Court, having considered the materials, accepted the case of the defendants and dismissed the suit. The appellate Court also confirmed the same in the appeal, filed by the plaintiff. The findings of both the Courts below are as follows:

"(A) In respect of the suit properties, kist was originally paid in the name of Kuppanna Gounder, who was the absolute owner of the properties, up to 1941. Thereafter, the kist was paid in the name of the second defendant Sellammal under Ex.B-3 (for the period from 1933 to 1958). There was a partition between Ramanna Gounder, his son Kuppanna Gounder and his son Duraisamy Gounder in the year 1956. The suit properties were not included in the partition deed, Ex.B-22. The second defendant had been in possession, by virtue of family arrangement, even from the year 1933, and, the