The requirement of a registered instrument for property transfer and the need for proper evidence and pleading to establish adverse possession.

1. The plaintiff in the suit in O.S.No.23 of 1998 on the file of the District Munsif Court, Thiruppathur, is the appellant in this appeal.

2. The plaintiff has filed the suit in O.S.No.23 of 1998 before the District Munsif Court, Thiruppathur, for the relief of declaration of title and for consequential permanent injunction restraining the respondent herein from interfering with the peaceful possession and enjoyment of the suit properties. The suit properties are nine items in the suit 'A' schedule and two items in suit 'B' schedule. It is admitted that the suit 'A' schedule properties have been purchased by the father of the plaintiff and the documents of title were marked as Ex.A1 to A3. The defendant is a purchaser from the other sons of plaintiff's father.

3. It is the case of the plaintiff that the father of the plaintiff though purchased the properties under Ex.A1 to Ex.A3, he orally gifted the property in favour of the plaintiff. It is the further case of the plaintiff that the suit 'B' schedule properties were purchased by the plaintiff himself in the name of his father.

4. It is the further case of the plaintiff that pursuant to the oral gift in respect of the 'A' schedule property, patta was transferred in the name of the plaintiff in the year 1987. Alleging that the suit 'A' schedule properties originally belong to the appellant's father and by virtue of oral gift made by the appellant's father in her favour, the appellant claimed exclusive title in respect of 'A' schedule properties. Though the suit was originally decreed by the trial Court, in the appeal that was preferred by the defendant in A.S.No.53 of 2003 on the file of Sub Court, Sivagangai, the matter was remitted back after setting aside the Judgment and Decree of the trial Court. After remand, it appears that the trial Court decreed the suit as prayed for in respect of 'A' schedule and 'B' schedule properties. Aggrieved by the findings of the trial Court, the defendant has preferred an appeal in A.S.No.81 of 2004, before the Sub Court, Sivagangai. The lower appellate Court partly allowed the appeal in respect of 'A' schedule properties. The lower appellate Court has also confirmed the findings of the trial Court regarding 'B' Schedule as the defendant did not dispute the title of plaintiff in respect of 'B' Schedule. Aggrieved by the Judgment and Decree of the lower appellate Court, the present appeal has been preferred.

5. The learned counsel appearing for the appellant submitted that patta in respect of the suit properties was transferred in favour of the appellant in the year 1987 and that the same would show that the plaintiff is in exclusive possession and enjoyment of the properties as absolute owner. But the document Ex.A4 would show that the patta was issued only in the year 1991.

6. It is further stated that in a partition that was effected among the parties under Ex.A13, dated 03.10.1960, the suit 'A' schedule properties were not included. It was further stated by the learned counsel for the appellant that the document under Ex.A13 would further show that the parties have agreed that except this property, no other properties are kept in common. It is also submitted by the learned counsel for the appellant that the other brothers of the plaintiff have no objection and they have not filed any suit questioning the plaintiff's exclusive title or enjoyment over the suit properties. It is further stated that the respondent has purchased only an undivided half share in the suit properties from two of the legal heirs and that the suit filed by the appellant cannot be dismissed in entirety.

7. The learned counsel for the appellant has raised the following substantial questions of law in the memorandum of grounds:

“a. Whether the plaintiff/Appellant had enjoyed the suit property more than the statutory period of limitation?

b. Whether the plaintiff/Appellant is entitled to the 'A? schedule property by adverse possession in view of her continuous enjoyme