The judgment emphasizes that possession for a long period does not automatically constitute adverse possession and highlights the principle of nec vi nec clam nec precario as essential for establishing adverse possession.

1. Challenging the correctness of the Judgment and Decree dated 26.02.2002 and made in A.S.No.87 of 2001, on the file of the learned III Additional District Judge at Pondicherry, modifying the Judgment and Decree dated 31.08.2001 and made in O.S.No.142 of 1996, on the file of the learned III Additional District Munsif, Pondicherry, the defendant has preferred this second appeal.

2. The facts, which giving rise to the memorandum of second appeal, are recapitulated as under:

The original legal status of the parties to the suit in the trial court need not be changed and may herein after be referred as it is in the suit.

The suit in O.S.No.142 of 1996 has been filed by the plaintiffs, who are the respondents herein as against the defendant, who is the appellant herein for the following reliefs:

1. declaring that the plaintiffs are the absolute owners of the suit property,

2. directing the defendant to vacate and hand over the vacant possession of the suit property,

3. passing a decree for a sum of Rs.930/- towards arrears of rent,

3. The plaintiffs are the sons of one Kannappa Nayakar. He had demised long before. The land measuring 40.00 Ares, comprised in Cadastre No.30 and Re-survey No.134/7, situated at Keezhagraharam Village, is originally belonged to the plaintiffs' maternal grandfather Gopalu Gounder. The said Gopalu Gounder had executed a registered Will on 30.09.1953 bequeathing the said property in favour of the plaintiffs' father Kannappa Nayakar and mother Perianayagi @ Mangavarathammal. Both the father and mother of the plaintiffs were in possession and enjoyment of the said property till their death. The said Perianayagi @ Mangavarathammal had pre-deceased her husband.

4. At the end of 1970, the plaintiffs' younger maternal grandfather's daughters Arundavam and Vimala had claimed title over the family property including the suit property. Hence, the plaintiffs' father and mother had filed a suit in O.S.No.15 of 1971 for the relief of declaration of their title over the property before the learned Principal Subordinate Judge at Pondicherry. That suit was decreed on 30.12.1972.

5. Impugning the Judgment and decree the said Arundavam and Vimala had filed an appeal in A.S.No.69 of 1973 on the file of the learned Principal District Judge, Pondicherry. The said appeal was dismissed on 23.04.1975.

6. Being aggrieved by the dismissal of the appeal, the said Arundavam and Vimala had filed a second appeal before this Court in S.A.No.1233 of 1976. The said second appeal was also dismissed on 14.09.1979 and as such, the Judgment and Decree dated 30.12.1972 and made in O.S.No.15 of 1971 in favour of the father and mother of the plaintiffs had become final.

7. Out of the extent of 40 Ares, a portion was leased out to the defendant for a monthly rent of Rs.10/- by the plaintiffs; father Kannappa Naicker. The defendant is residing in the suit property in the capacity of a lessee. He had been paying rent to the plaintiffs' father till his death. After his death, the lease was attorned in favour of the plaintiffs and thereafter the defendant had become irregular in paying the rents. Actually, he had committed wilful default in paying the rent from August 1990. Hence, the plaintiffs were constrained to issue a legal notice on 27.08.1992 and the defendant was also replied. Thereafter, the lease was duly terminated. Since, the defenant had denied the title of the plaintiffs over the suit property, the plaintiffs were constrained to file the suit for declaration and recovery of possession etc.,

8. The defendant had contended in his written statement that the plaintiffs maternal grandfather Gopalu Gounder never possessed and enjoyed the said property till his death and that he never executed a registered Will on 30.09.1953 bequeathing the said property to the plaintiffs' father Kannappa Nayakar and mother Perianayagi @ Mangavarathammal. Neither the plaintiffs' father Kannappa Nayakar nor his mother Perianayagi @ Mangavarathammal had e