Adverse possession must be specifically pleaded and proved, with continuous possession adverse to the true owner, to establish title.

The plaintiff, who last the legal battle before both the Courts below, has come forward with this Second Appeal challenging the Judgement and Decree dated 28.10.2002, passed in A.S.No.113 of 2001, on the file of the learned Principal Subordinate Judge, Madurai, by confirming the Judgment and Decree dated 02.02.2001, passed in O.S.No.81 of 2000, on the file of the learned District Munsif, Melur.

2. Heard the learned counsel for the appellant and the learned Counsel for the first respondent and perused the materials available on record.

3. The appellant, as a plaintiff filed a suit in O.S.No.81 of 2000 for declaration of title and injunction stating that the suit property is originally belonging to one Rasool Bibi, who is the junior maternal aunt of the plaintiff and her husband is one Mohideen Khan. Since they are not having any child for a long time, they are bringing up and maintaining the plaintiff as their own daughter. After a long time, the second defendant was born to Mohideen Khan and Rasool Bibi. In the year 1969, the plaintiff was married to one Sheik Mohamed. Mohideen Khan has transferred the suit property to the plaintiff as her marriage gift -Hiba. From that date onwards, she took possession and enjoyment of the same by mutation of revenue records and paying the kists. But on 9th June 2000, the second defendant, who is the son of Rasool Bibi and Mohideen Khan attempted to interfere the plaintiff's peaceful possession and enjoyment and hence, she is constrained to file the suit for declaration of title and injunction stating that she is in possession and enjoyment of the suit property on the basis of the oral gift -Hiba and from the date of oral gift, she is in open, continuous and uninterrupted possession of the suit property for more than the statutory period and thereby has perfected her title by adverse possession.

4. Resisting the same, the second respondent/second defendant filed a detailed written statement stating that there is no oral gift and all the documents were concocted. The plaintiff's husband is a Revenue Inspector. So all the revenue documents have been concocted for the purpose of the case. He would further submit that the adoption of female child is prohibited under Mohamedan law. The second defendant was born in the year 1964 and he is the only son. There is no necessity for them to settle the property in favour of the plaintiff. The plaintiff was married in the year 1968 and not in the year 1969. The mother of the second defendant purchased the suit property under a registered sale deed dated 30.12.1957 and she was in possession and enjoyment till her death on 29.03.1969. Then as per Mohamedan law, the second defendant is entitled to 3/4th share and his father is entitled to 1/4th share and they are enjoying the property as her legal heirs, by paying kists. So the oral gift itself is false. He would further submit that the plaintiff neither in possession nor cultivating the land. The name has been transferred in all revenue records by tampering the patta passbook and other documents. The second defendant alone borrowed a crop loan from the Karuppayoorani Primary Co-operative Bank for cultivation. The first defendant purchased the suit property and the adjacent property. She put up a petrol bunk in the adjacent property and she has fenced the suit property with pucca stone pillar. There is no cause of action for the suit and hence, prayed for dismissal of the suit.

5. The trial Court, after considering the averments both in the plaint and written statement and the arguments of both sides, has framed the necessary issues and dismissed the suit stating that the plaintiff has not proved her title to the property by oral gift – Hiba and the property has not been given as marriage gift to the plaintiff at the time of marriage and also she is not in possession of the suit property. Against which, the plaintiff preferred an appeal in A.S.No.113 of 2001. The first Appellate Court also dismissed th