Mere possession, however long it may be, would not ripen into possessory title unless the possessor has animus possidendi to hold the land adverse to the title of the true owner. The plaintiff failed to prove adverse possession and prescription of title over the 'B' schedule property.

1. The unsuccessful defendants in both the courts below are the appellants.The Second Appeal is directed against the judgment and decree dated 29.08.1997 passed by the learned Principal District Judge, Villupuram, in A.S.No.44 of 1996, whereby the judgment and decree passed by the learned Principal District Munsif, Villupuram, dated 31.01.1995 in O.S.No.786 of 1990, were confirmed.

2. The 1st respondent herein is the sole plaintiff, who filed the suit against the appellants herein for declaration and permanent injunction in respect of 'A' schedule properties and also declaration and recovery of possession in respect of 'B' schedule properties with future mesne profits. For convenience, the parties are hereinafter described as per their array in the suit.

3. The case of the plaintiff is briefly stated as under: The suit properties originally belonged to the plaintiff's father Govindasamy and they are the ancestral properties and his father was in enjoyment of the same till his death and after his death, the plaintiff came into possession and enjoyment of the suit properties. The plaintiff's father's brother Chinnasamy was a mentally retarded person and he died intestate and therefore, his half share of the properties were also being enjoyed by Govindasamy. Govindasamy sold half of the suit items to his father-in-law Rajamanickam by a sale deed dated 05.04.1924. Thereafter, by a settlement deed dated 07.10.1960, the said Rajamanickam's wife Manickammal settled eastern half of the properties in favour of the plaintiff and hence, the plaintiff has been in possession of the entire properties and he prescribed title by adverse possession. The plaintiff also mortgaged the properties on 12.09.1960 to one Varadarajan Udayar. While so, in the year 1986, the 1st defendant attempted to take forcible possession of eastern half of the suit properties stating that Chinnasamy, the plaintiff's paternal uncle, had executed a sale deed in his favour and he trespassed into the suit 'B' schedule properties. Since the 1st defendant alleged that one Kadirvelu is in enjoyment of suit 2nd item, he has been impleaded as the 2nd defendant. Hence, the suit.

4. Denying the plaint averments, the 1st defendant filed a written statement stating that the plaintiff has originally filed a suit in O.S.787 of 1988 and thereafter, he had withdrawn the same. It is his specific defence that suit item-1 of 'B' schedule was originally belonged to Chinnasamy Udayar, who sold the same to this defendant's paternal grandfather Narayana Udayar in 1938 along with item 2 of suit 'A' schedule and other properties. Narayana Udayar had two sons, Ariyaputhiri Udayar and Thanikachala Udayar. Thereafter, Narayana Udayar died and Thanikachala Udayar also died issueless and this defendant's father Ariyaputhiri Udayar came into possession and enjoyment of eastern half of 0.65 cents in R.S.No.266/5 i.e. item No.1 of 'B' schedule and the western half of the house property i.e. Item-2 of 'A' schedule and on his death, the 1st defendant being his only son, succeeded to the said properties and has been paying the kist for the same. One Kadirvelu, the 2nd defendant (2nd appellant) is in possession of the item No.2 of 'B' schedule i.e.the eastern half of the house property. In fact, the plaintiff is in permissive possession of the western half of the house property belonging to the 1st defendant and in exchange thereof, the 1st defendant is in possession of item No.2 of 'B' schedule through the 2nd defendant. This defendant is prepared to surrender possession of the suit item No.2 of 'B' schedule to the plaintiff provided he vacates and delivers possession of the western half of the house property to him. Thus, the defendant had taken a specific stand that he is having a right in 'B' schedule property since the same had been purchased by his paternal ancestor Narayana Udayar by a sale deed dated 29.09.1938, from whom the properties devolved on his subsequent legal heirs by way of