The main legal point established in the judgment is that mere long possession is not enough to constitute adverse possession; it must be coupled with animus possidendi.

M. SATHYANARAYANAN, J.

1. The plaintiffs, who had lost before the Courts below, are the appellants herein.

2. The facts leading to the filing of this Second Appeal, briefly narrated, are as follows:-

(a) The appellants/plaintiffs filed a suit in O.S. No. 285 of 2004 on the file of the Court of the District Munsif at Ranipet, Vellore District, against the respondents/defendants, praying for a judgment and decree to declare the title of the plaintiffs as well as the defendants 8 and 9 to the suit schedule mentioned property and for permanent injunction, restraining the defendants 1 to 3 and defendants 5 to 7 and their men, agents and servants from interfering with their peaceful possession and enjoyment of the same and also for cost.

(b) The appellants/plaintiffs would aver among other things that the suit scheduled mentioned property originally belonged to Padavettan @ Paramanantham S/o Periya Munusamy and it was his self-acquisition having purchased the same under a registered Sale deed dated 14.09.1950 (Ex.A1). The appellants/plaintiffs would further aver that the Padavettan @ Paramanantham died intestate in the year 1957 leaving behind his sons namely Selvam, Sigamani, Kristi (4th defendant) and Yesupatham (father of Plaintiffs 2 to 5) as his heirs and as such, they are entitled to succeed to the suit scheduled property by having ¼th share each and that they are in joint possession and common enjoyment of the suit scheduled property as co-owners.

(c) It is further averred by the appellants/ plaintiffs that in or about the year 1984, one of the co-owner Sigamani died unmarried and issue-less and in 1985, another co-owner namely Selvam died unmarried and issue-less and their undivided ½ share in the suit scheduled property devolved upon the remaining two co-owners and as such, Kristi and Yesupatham became entitled to ½ share each.

(d) The appellants/plaintiffs would further stated that the 4th defendant, one of the co-owners left for Salem, and settled there and never shown interest in the suit schedule property. In the light of the said fact, the plaintiffs are in common possession and enjoyment and that the 4th defendant did not evince any interest in the suit property, they perfected their title to the undivided ½ share by ouster and also adverse possession and on that ground also, they are entitled to the entire suit scheduled property.

(e) The appellants/plaintiffs would further submit that the said Yesupatham died intestate on 25.02.1990 leaving behind his wife (the 1st Plaintiff) and two sons who are plaintiffs 2 and 3 and two daughters who are Plaintiffs 4 and 5, as his only legal heirs and the 1st plaintiff is entitled to 1/3rd share as his sons and daughters are equally as entitled to the remaining 2/3 share in the suit scheduled property. The defendants 1 to 3 who have no right and title in the scheduled property, attempted to interfere in the peaceful possession and enjoyment and on 20.04.1998, they trespassed into the suit property and cut the plants and removed the same and it was protested and objected and since, repeated attempts have been made by them, the plaintiffs came forward to file the above said suit.

(f) The defendants 8 and 9 remained ex-parte. The 10th defendant filed the written statement which was adopted by the defendants 11 and 12. The 10th defendant apart from refuting the averments made in the plaint, would state that originally the suit property belong to one Padavettan @ Paramanantham S/o Periya Munusamy and he died in the year 1957 leaving behind his sons Selvam, Sigamani, Kristi (as father of defendants 11 and 12 and husband of 10th defendant), Yesupatham and they enjoyed the property jointly till their demise and denied the allegations that the co-owner namely Kristi never evinced interest in the suit property and in fact, he used to visit the place in which the suit properties are located very often and as such, the claim made by the appellants/plaintiffs as ouster and adverse possessio