Long possession cannot be a ground for adverse possession in the instant case.

This second appeal is filed by the defendants. The facts which are not in dispute are as follows:

The property belonged to one Mannadha Pillai, whose sons were Balakrishnan and Muthukrishnan. After the death of Mannadha Pillai, they sold it to Veeraswami on 15. 1892, who is turn sold it to his daughter Kanakavalli, who happened to be the wife of Mannadha Pillai, on 110. 1901. After Kanakavalli’s death, her legal heirs were her daughters Thayammal, Ponnukannu and Swarnathammal. The last daughter died issueless. The property thus belonged to Thayammal and Ponnukannu. Thayammal’s grand daughters are Alamelu and Narayani, while Ponnukannu’s daughters are Kuppammal and Janaki Ammal. Janaki Ammal sold her l/4th share to Nachammal alias Andal on 2. 1968. There was a suit for partition in O.S.No.125 of 1969 filed by Alamelu Ammal and Narayani Ammal against Kuppammal and Janaki Ammal. It was decreed and the eastern half was allotted to Kuppammal and Janaki Ammal. Kuppammal’s daughter Thulasi Ammal sold her l/4th share to the plaintiff under Ex.A-4, dated 11. 1975 and Andal Ammal sold her 1/4th share to the plaintiff under Ex.A-3, dated 12. 1975. Thus, the plaintiff, claiming the eastern half share which was allotted to Kuppammal and Janaki Ammal in the partition suit, filed the present suit for declaration of his title and for delivery of possession. The first defendant is the son of Balakrishnan, son of Mannadha Pillai, already referred to. The second-defendant is the son of the first defendant. They resisted the suit contending that they are entitled to the properties absolutely, on two counts. First, they claimed that the sale deed executed by Balakrishnan and Muthukrishnan in favour of Veerasamy was sham and nominal and it was never given effect to. According to them, possession continued with the vendors always. Secondly, it is contended that the defendants have perfected title to the property by adverse possession as the property was with them for more than hundred years.

2. The courts below have negatived both the contentions and granted a decree in favour of the plaintiff.

3. In this appeal it is argued that the judgments of the courts below are erroneous. It is argued that there is ample evidence to prove that Balakrishnan and Muthukrishnan never parted with possession after the sale in favour of Veerasamy and the transaction was sham and nominal. That is a pure question of fact and the courts below have, on the evidence available on record, come to a conclusion against the appellants. There is no possibility to interfere with the same in a second appeal.

4. The other argument advanced by learned counsel for the appellants is that in any event, possession of the property having been with the appellants for over hundred years, they have perfected title to the property by adverse possession. The lower appellate court has given two reasons for rejecting the contention. One reason is that the property having been sold by Balakrishnan and Muthukrishnan to Veerasamy, who in turn sold to Kanakavalli under whom the present plaintiff claims by virtue of subsequent purchases, it is not open to the appellants, who claim under Balakrishnan and Muthukrishnan to put forward a case of adverse possession. That reasoning is obviously erroneous. I do not accept the same. Just because Balakrishnan and Muthukrishnan had sold the property to Veerasamy, they will not be precluded from setting up title by prescription, if they had continued to be in possession subsequently, adverse to the purchaser for over the requisite period. Consequently, their successor-in-interest also are not precluded.

5. However, the other reason given by the learned Judge is unassailable. The learned Judge has held that mere possession for long period, be it hundred years or more, will not make it adverse possession and such possession should be continuous, uninterrupted, peaceful, public and as an owner to prescribe title by adverse possession to the property