Both pleadings and proof essential for cleaning adverse possession.

Defendants in O.S. No.290 of 1979, on the file of the District Munsif’s Court, Tirumangalam, are the appellants herein. After the filing of the second appeal, first appellant died, and appellants 3 to 8 have been impleaded as L.Rs. i.e., as additional appellants, as per order in C.M.P. No.3155 of 1992 dated 20.7.1992.

2.. Relevant facts are as follows: Plaintiffs filed the suit for declaration of title and recovery of possession, with mesne profits. The Scheduled property originally belonged to the first defendant and others. As per Ex.A-3 dated 210. 1930, they sold the property to plaintiffs predecessors. The purchaser under Ex.A-3 was a minor. The purchaser died within a period of one year from the date of purchase, and thereafter his mother executed a release deed in favour of one Ramachandra Reddiar. There were also other claimants, who also executed release deeds in favour of Ramachandra Reddiar. Those documents are Exs.A-4 and A-5.

3. It is the case of the plaintiffs that subsequently the plaintiffs became the owners of the property. According to them, the defendants are in permissive possession and, therefore, liable to vacate the same. Plaintiffs issued a notice dated 111. 1978 requiring the first defendant to vacate, but he refused to comply with the request, stating that he has prescribed title by adverse possession. Hence, the plaintiffs filed the suit for declaration of title and recovery of possession.

4. In the written statement filed by the defendants, it was contended that the sale deed executed as per Ex.A-3 was not acted upon and the defendants and the other vendors continued to reside and to be in possession of the property even thereafter, and there was no interruption in their possession. Finally, it was said that even if the sale had been acted upon or come into force, their possession was adverse, open, hostile and uninterrupted and, therefore, the right of the plaintiffs was lost by adverse possession and limitation.

.5. On the above pleadings, the parties went on trial. On the side of the plaintiffs, P.Ws.l to 3 were examined and Exs.A-1 to A-14 were marked. On the side of the defendants, D.Ws. 1 to 4 were examined and Exs.B-1 to B-19 were marked. On the basis of the said evidence, trial court came to the conclusion that Ex.A-3 sale deed was acted upon. It came into effect, and the plaintiffs predecessor obtained valid title to the property. But it came to the conclusion that since the first defendant was paying house tax for a long period describing himself as owner and since his possession was admitted, and since permissive possession was also not proved, title of the plaintiffs was lost by long adverse possession. The suit was, therefore, dismissed.

6. Against the said decision, plaintiffs preferred A.S. No.86 of 1982, on the file of the Subordinate Judge’s Court, Madurai. The lower appellate court held that the finding regarding adverse possession by the trial court was wrong. Defendants did not have the animus to hold the property against the plaintiffs or their predecessor and the possession of the defendants can only be referred to as lawful title. The suit was decreed and recovery of possession was ordered. It is against the said judgment, defendants have preferred this second appeal.

.7. The following substantial question of law has been raised:

."Whether the finding of the lower appellate court that the first defendant has not acquired title to the suit property by adverse possession is sustainable?"

8. The only point to be considered is, whether the claim of the plaintiffs is lost in view of adverse possession claimed by the appellants.

9. First I will consider the question of adverse possession and how it should be pleaded.

10. ‘Adverse possession’ has been defined in the Limitation Act, 1963 by Chitaley and Rao - 4th Edition (1965) - Volume II, at pages 1255 to 1257, as follows:

"Adverse possession, what is - The expression "adverse possession" means a "hostile possessi