Implications of conditions required to constitute adverse possession.

1. The fifth defendant in O.S.No.51 of 1994 on the file of the District Munsif, Nannilam, is the appellant in the second appeal. The first defendant was the brother of the first respondent. The first respondent filed the suit for recovery of possession and future profits against the first defendant. Pending suit he died and his wife and children were brought on record as defendants 2 to 10. The second defendant, wife of the first defendant also died pending suit and defendants 3 to 10 were recorded as her legal representatives. Defendants 3 to 10 adopted the written statement of the first defendant in the suit. Only the fifth defendant effectively contested the suit.

2. The case as set out in the plaint was as follows:

The suit property, a house property, was the ancestral property of the plaintiff and the first defendant. In a partition this was allotted to the plaintiff on 22. 1956. He permitted the first defendant to live in the suit house from the year 1975 and his status was that of a permissive occupant. As the first defendant did not vacate the suit house in spite of written request made by the plaintiff, the suit was filed for the reliefs already stated. Originally the suit was filed before the District Munsif s Court, Mayiladuthurai as O.S.No. 717 of 1987 and it was subsequently transferred to the file of the District Munsif s Court, Nannilam, and renumbered as O.S.No.51 of 1994. The plaint was presented on 110. 1987.

3. The defence set up was as follows:

It was true that the suit house was allotted to the plaintiff in the family partition. In the same partition, a house in Pattamangalam Street, Mayiladuthurai Town, was allotted to the plaintiff.

Subsequently, there was an understanding between the plaintiff and the first defendant, whereby the lands in Pattamangalam Village and the first defendant’s house in Pattamangalam Street were sold and out of the sale proceeds 15 Mahs of lands each were purchased for the plaintiff and the first defendant in Nalladai Village. Even though the sale proceeds from the sale of the first defendant’s share was more than the sale proceeds from the sale of the plaintiff’s share of the lands, still lands were purch ased equally in Nalladai Village and there was an understanding between the plaintiff and the first defendant that the suit house would be given to the first defendant by way of compensation towards equalisation of shares. The plaintiff agreed to the same and the suit house was given to the first defendant. The first defendant and his family members were enjoying the same along with the dry lands adjacent to the suit house as one block. They had been in possession and enjoyment of the suit house and the adjacent land for more than the statutory period and had prescribed for title by adverse possession.

4. The learned District Munsif framed the following issues:

.(1) Whether for the reasons set out in the first defendant’s written statement the plaintiff is not entitled to the relief of possession of the suit property?

.(2) Whether the first defendant had prescribed for title by adverse possession? and

.(3) To what relief is the plaintiff entitled?

The learned District Munsif held that the first defendant had been in possession and enjoyment of the suit property right from the year 1958, that the case of the first defendant that the suit property was agreed to be given to the first defendant towards equalisation of the shares as pleaded in the written statement was true and that in any event, the first defendant and after him his legal representatives had prescribed for title by adverse possession. The learned District Munsif also found that the first defendant had been treating the house as his own property by spending a large sum on its renovation and maintenance, which was also admitted by the plaintiff as P.W.1 and according to the learned District Munsif, this was a further circumstance supporting the case of the first defendant. By his judgment and