The oral sale of immovable property for a value more than one hundred rupees is not valid under law. Adverse possession must be pleaded and proved. Possession follows title.

1. The Second Appeal is filed against the judgment and decree of the Sub-Court, Ponneri, passed in A.S. No.3 of 2001 dated 21.12.2001, reversing the judgment and decree of the District Munsif Court, Ponneri, passed in O.S. No.735 of 1996 dated 30.11.2000.

2. The averments in the Plaint are as follows:

(i) The Plaintiff had purchased the suit properties under a registered Sale Deed dated 05.09.1964. After purchase, she had made an improvement on the suit properties and has been cultivating the same. From the date of purchase onwards, she is in possession and enjoyment of the suit properties as an absolute owner. She has also created an equitable mortgage in the Punjab National Bank, Chennai and obtained loan by depositing the title deeds and Encumbrance Certificate in the year 1984. The documents of title deed have been misplaced by the bank. It was yet to be received by the Plaintiff, even though, she had discharged the loan.

(ii) The Defendants have no right of any nature over the suit properties. The Defendants had an idea of purchasing the suit properties. When the sale price was not agreeable, the Plaintiff did not agree to sell the suit properties. So, the Defendants have become enimical towards the Plaintiff and they openly proclaiming in the suit village and holding treats of forcible dispossession of the Plaintiff from the suit properties. Hence, the Plaintiff is constrained to file the Suit for declaration of title and also for permanent injunction.

3. The gist and essence of Written Statement filed by the First Defendant adopted by Defendants 2 and 3, are as follows:

(i) It is true that the Plaintiff purchased the suit properties from one Ekambara Reddy and others on 05.09.1964 for Rs.4,000/-. But, the entire sale consideration has not been paid by her. The Sale Deed has been executed by Ekambara Reddy and others in favour of Plaintiff only to discharge the debt due to one Lakshmipathy Naidu and even though, the Plaintiff herself undertook to clear the loan amount due to Lakshmipathy Naidu, she has not cleared it for a long time.

(ii) Items 1 and 2 of the suit properties alone are patta lands and Items 3 and 4 of the suit properties are anadheenam Poromboke land for which the Government is the ultimate owner. The suit lands were lying fallow for a long time. The Plaintiff is none other than the daughter of the First Defendant’s paternal aunt, viz., Chellammal. The First Defendant stood by and arranged for the said sale in favour of the Plaintiff by Ekambara Reddy and others. Hence, Ekambara Reddy demanded money due to him and in the year 1975, the Plaintiff not only expressed her inability to pay the amounts due to Ekambara Reddy, but in turn agreed to sell the suit properties to the First Defendant for a sum of Rs.20,000/-. Accordingly, the First Defendant orally purchased the suit properties from the Plaintiff for a sum of Rs.20,000/-, in the Karthigai month of 1975. Immediately after the oral purchase, the First Defendant took possession of the suit properties reclaimed it and made it fit for cultivation and also started cultivation. The First Defendant’s father Balarama Reddy, died even earlier, the First Defendant as the Kartha and manager of the joint family, he is in possession and enjoyment of the same. Since, the Plaintiff is a relative, the First Defendant not insisted for execution of the Sale Deed. In 1978, the Plaintiff has expressed her desire to get back the suit properties from the First Defendant by paying back a sum of Rs.20,000/- paid by the First Defendant. Hence, the Plaintiff along with her husband attempted to dispossess the First Defendant from the suit properties as early as in 1978, which was duly resisted by the Defendants.

(iii) Patta also stands in the name of Ekambara Reddy. Then, the patta has been changed in the name of First Defendant and the Patta Number is 338, subsequently, it was changed to Patta No. 302. The kist has been paid by him. The suit properties have been