General principles relating to adverse possession stated.

1. The plaintiffs in O.S.No.1925 of 1981 on the file of the Principal District Munsif, Tindivanam, are the appellants in the second appeal. They filed the suit for declaration, recovery of possession, mesne profits and for a mandatory injunction to the defendant/respondent to remove the 3 Horse Power motor pumpset and the thatched shed from the suit property on the following averments:

The suit item 1 is of an extent of 20 cents in S.No.156/2. The suit item 3 is a well and pumpset in suit item 1. (So far as suit item 2 is concerned, the defendant does not claim any right in the same and it is not necessary to deal with item No.2). The suit item 1 and other properties originally belonged to the joint family of one Venkatasamy Naidu. There was a partition in the said family on 12. 1959. Individual items and undivided shares in properties including lands and wells were in the possession and enjoyment of individual sharers. The plaintiffs purchased the suit property among others from one of the branches. viz., Ramanujalu Naidus branch under a sale deed dated 24. 1980 for a valuable consideration of Rs.13,000. By virtue of purchase they have clear and unimpeachable title and in any event, they have prescribed for title by adverse possession on account of uninterrupted and notorious possession by the predecessors in interest of the plaintiffs and by the plaintiffs. There is a well in suit item No.1 in a land of 20 cents. There is a electric motor and pumpset installed by one Subramania Gounder with the permission of the plaintiffs and their vendors. The plaintiffs’ vendor Ramanujalu Naidu was working as Deputy Superintendent of Police and he was away from the village most of the time on account his occupation. His other family members were also elsewhere on account of studies and job. The family members of Ramanujalu Naidu enjoyed their shares in the lands by leasing out to others. In respect of the suit property and other lands the plaintiffs were cultivating the lands on lease on oral basis. The water from the well in R.S.No.156/2 20 cents was not used by and was also not required for purpose of irrigation by any other sharers.

The well in suit item No.1 is not a common well. There is a well in R.S.No.156/1 which the plaintiffs have got 2/3rd share while one Kottaiah Naidu had 1/3rd. One of the brothers Kottaiah Naidu sold his share to Subramania Gounder on 16. 1965. The suit item were not the subject matter of conveyance under the said sale deed. Subramania Gounder sold what he purchased to one Ranganayaki Ammal on 4. 1979 and from Ranganayaki Ammal the defendant purchased on 24. 1980. The suit properties were not subject matter of these three sale deeds. The defendant does not therefore have any right in the suit properties. Subramania Gounder, after his purchase in 1965, expressed difficulty in getting supply of water from the common well. Therefore, he sought for permission from Ramanujalu Naidu and his sons and also the plaintiffs to put up an electric motor and pumpset in the suit well situate in R.S.No.156/2 and accordingly, he put up an electric motor and pumpset in the suit well in R.S.No.156/2. Since Subramania Gounder had no independent title or possession with regard to installation of electric motor in R.S.No.156/2 and he was only a permissive user, he could not prescribe title to have this electric motor inside the well in R.S.No.156/2. In fact, the electric motor itself was put up in 1968 and when he sold it to Ranganayaki Ammal on 4. 1979, 12 years had not elapsed. There was no question of adverse possession to have a right to retain the electric motor in the suit well.

On 27. 1981 the plaintiffs caused a notice to be issued to the defendant who claimed right in the well and motor and pumpset in the suit item 1, to which a reply was given by the defendant on 27. 1981 stating that the well in S.No.156/2 had become dilapidated and non-existent and that Subramania Gounder dug a well in 1968. Subramania Gound