The burden to prove adverse possession lies on the defendant, requiring evidence of animus possidendi and denial of the true owner's title. Mere long possession does not amount to adverse possession. When claiming ownership, one cannot plead adverse possession.

1. The unsuccessful plaintiff is the appellant.

2. The plaintiff filed the suit for declaration and for recovery of possession from the third defendant/third respondent herein.

3. The case of the plaintiff was that the property originally belonged to her mother Manickam Ammal and she purchased the same under a sale deed dated 9.4.1923, Ex.A1 and after her enjoyment and her death, the property was inherited by the plaintiff and the plaintiff is enjoying the same and the plaintiff is residing in a village 20 kms away from the suit property and therefore, she requested the first defendant, the first respondent herein to look after the property and the first respondent was also cultivating the property on her behalf and was paying the rent to the plaintiff and at the request of the plaintiff, the first defendant/first respondent was paying kist and later, the plaintiff came to know that the third defendant was looking after the property and when the same was questioned, the first defendant did not give proper reply and on verification, it was found that the first defendant sold the property under Ex.B1 to the second defendant and the second defendant sold the property to the third defendant under Ex.B2 and as defendants 1 and 2 have sold the property to the third defendant and the third defendant claims to be the owner of the property, the suit was filed for declaration and recovery of possession.

4. Defendants 1 and 2 remained ex parte and the third defendant contested the suit and filed a written statement stating that the property belonged originally to the first defendant's father Rathnavel Padayachi and he was enjoying the same and under Ex.B1, the first defendant sold the property to the second defendant and under Ex.B2, the second defendant sold the property to the third defendant and from the date of sale, the third defendant is enjoying the property and the third defendant and his predecessors-in-title viz., defendants 1 and 2 have also perfected title by adverse possession and therefore, the plaintiff is not entitled to the relief of declaration and recovery of possession.

5. The Trial Court found that the property belonged to the plaintiff, but, dismissed the suit holding that the third defendant prescribed title by adverse possession and therefore, the plaintiff is not entitled to the relief of declaration and recovery of possession. Aggrieved by the same, the plaintiff filed the first appeal and the learned first appellate court also held that the third defendant and his predecessors in title have perfected title by adverse possession and therefore, the plaintiff/appellant is not entitled to the decree of declaration and recovery of possession. Hence, the second appeal.

6. At the time of admission, the following substantial questions of law were framed:-

"1. Whether, in law, the courts below are right in finding that the respondents had prescribed title by adverse possession when there is no evidence to show it?

2. Whether, in law, the courts below are not wrong in overlooking that respondents 1 and 2 remained ex parte and that the third respondent's title, if any, was only from the date of Ex.B2 and that it was not for the statutory period of 12 years?"

7. It is submitted by Mr.R.Subramanain, learned counsel for the appellants that both the courts below have erroneously held that the third defendant has perfected title by adverse possession without properly understanding the law on adverse possession. He further submitted that once the court has held that the plaintiff is the owner of the property, the burden is on the third defendant to prove that he has perfected title by adverse possession and the case of the third defendant was that the property originally belonged to the father of the first defendant by name Rathnavel Padayachi and the first defendant inherited the same after his death and he sold the same to the second defendant and the second defendant, in turn, sold the same to the third defendant and