In order to establish adverse possession, the person claiming such possession must prove that he has been in open, continuous, exclusive, hostile and without interruption possession of the property for the required period of 12 years.

JUDGMENT :- The defendant is the appellant. The suit is for a declaration of the plaintiff's title to the suit property and for possession. The suit property originally belonged to Ramalingam Pillai and his wife Pattammal. They mortgaged the same to Lakshmi Banking Corporation (P.) Ltd. The mortgagee represented by voluntary liquidator Sri Sundaresa Iyer filed O. S. 106 of 1957 on the file of the District Munsif, Pudukottai on the said mortgage and obtained a decree. In execution of the said decree, he purchased the property and took delivery on 9th July 1959. The defendant was in occupation of the shed covered by asbestos at that time as a licensee and when informed about the purchase he vacated and gave possession to the auction purchaser. Delivery was made with reference to the boundaries and, the defendant has signed the delivery receipt. After delivery, the liquidator died and Sri A. R. Krishnamurthi Iyer, Advocate, was appointed liquidator in his place. While he was in possession of the property on 17-1-1961, he sold the property to the plaintiff, he having sold the bricks and stones and the asbestos sheets to the plaintiff a few days before the sale. Taking advantage of the plaintiff's absence from Pudukottai the case of the plaintiff is that the defendant trespassed into the suit property and occupied a room and refused to vacate the same without any manner of right, title or interests in any portion of the property and when he was asked to vacate, he threatened to cut the fruit bearing trees and the present suit is filed for declaration of the plaintiff's title and for possession.

2. The defendant denied the trespass and contended that he was in open, continuous possession of the property for over 16 years, that he has perfected his title by adverse possession, that he did not sign the delivery receipt, that the plaintiff has not acquired title to the suit property, that neither the plaintiff nor his predecessors-in-title were in possession of the suit property within twelve years prior to the suit, that the property never vested in the liquidator A. R. Krishnamurthi Iyer and that the sale in favour of the plaintiff is invalid.

3. The trial court framed five issues and on 7-6-1962 decreed the suit as prayed for.

4. The defendant filed A. S. 33 of 1962 to the Subordinate Judge, Pudukottai and the learned Judge allowed the appeal and the plaintiff filed S. A. 255 of 1963 to the High Court and the learned Judge allowed the appeal and remanded the suit for fresh disposal observing as follows -

"The defendant will be given an opportunity to make out an exact case as to the extent, which he claims and is in possession. The plaintiff also would have an opportunity to let in any evidence that he might consider necessary in order to prove that what he purchased is 2-05 acres of land, comprised within the boundaries given in his sale deed and mentioned in the plaint schedule. There will be no order as to costs. The finding with regard to the possession is also set aside. The whole question will be reconsidered after giving an opportunity to the parties to let in evidence."

After remand the defendant filed an additional written statement. Two additional issues were framed and the learned Judge after consideration of the entire evidence held that the plaintiff's case of defendant's trespass on the suit property is true and that the plaintiff has got title to the entire property that is 2 acres 5 cents, that the plaintiff and his predecessors-in-title have been in possession of the suit property within twelve years prior to the date of the suit, that on 9-7-1959, the entire property was delivered to the liquidator. In the result, the suit was decreed as prayed for.

5. The defendant filed A. S. No. 45 of 1968 and the learned Judge in a very short judgment dismissed the appeal agreeing with the decision of the trial court. The defendant has filed the above second appeal.

6. The contention of the learned counsel is that the entire judgmen

Click Here to Read the rest of this document