The legal principle of adverse possession requires the claimant to provide sufficient evidence of open, hostile, and uninterrupted possession, which was not established in this case.

JUDGMENT

(Prayer: This Appeal Suit has been filed, under Section 96 and Order 41 Rule 1 of the Civil Procedure Code, against the judgment and decree dated 13.07.2012 made in O.S.No.133 of 2011 on the file of the I Additional District cum Sessions Court, Cuddalore.)

1. This Appeal Suit has been filed challenging the judgment and decree, dated 13.07.2012, made in O.S.No.133 of 2011 on the file of the I Additional District cum Sessions Court, Cuddalore.

2. The appellant is the plaintiff and the respondents are the defendants in the said suit in O.S.No.133 of 2011. For the sake of convenience, the parties hereinafter are referred to as they were arrayed in the suit.

3. The suit was filed seeking preliminary decree of partition and separate possession of Plaintiff's 1/3 share in the suit 'B' schedule property, to appoint an Advocate Commissioner to divide the suit 'B' schedule property by metes and bounds into 3 equal shares and to allot one such share to the Plaintiff and restrain the defendants, their men and agents by a decree of permanent injunction, from in any manner interfering with plaintiff's peaceful possession and enjoyment of the suit 'D' schedule property and for costs.

4. The case of the Plaintiff is that the Plaintiff and the 1st Defendant are brothers. The 2nd Defendant is their sister. The 3rd to 6th Defendants are the daughters of the 2nd Defendant. The 1st Defendant has married the 3rd Defendant. Plaintiff's father was Pavadai. His mother was Rajambal Ammal. They brought up a male, by name Selvaraj as their foster son. After they decided to bring up Selvaraj as the foster son, Plaintiff and 1st Defendant were born. Thereafter, Rajambal Ammal decided to give some property to him and also to Plaintiff and 1st Defendant.

5. The suit 'B' and 'C' schedule properties belonged to their mother. Hence, she executed a Settlement Deed dated 25.06.1968 in favour of the foster son, namely Selvaraj. On the same day, the mother gave remaining 31 feet East-West to Plaintiff and 1st Defendant jointly. They are living jointly in the same place not by division but by adjustment. In due course, Selvaraj became indebted. He could have disposed of his share, but as there was no demarcation or defined portion, third parties were not willing to purchase. A division would have meant expenditure which Selvaraj could not afford. The 2nd Defendant's husband came forwarded to provide financial assistance.

6. Thereafter, in the year 1984, Selvaraj borrowed money from 2nd Defendant's husband. However, as a security, the Settlement Deed dated 25.06.1968 was given to the 2nd Defendant's husband, namely Chinnaraj. However, it was taken as a sale deed not only to serve as a security, but also to screen away from creditors, as the exact amount due was not known. The debts were discharged.

7. The sale deed was meant not to be enforced as a security for the sum borrowed. Plaintiff knew about the same, since he was a witness to the transaction and has signed as a witness. The original registered deed was with Chinnaraj, but the possession was not at all taken. Neither the 2nd Defendant nor her husband took possession of the property so purchased. It was not capable of being taken possession of. He did not bother to take possession ,since it was not a sale deed in reality. Within two years, Selvaraj also discharged the loan amount due to Chinnaraj. The original sale deed was also returned to Selvaraj. Admittedly, there is only on entrance in the Western portion and the middle portion. Selvaraj continued to be in possession till he discharged all loans including the money due to Chinnaraj. Thereafter, in the year 1988, Selvaraj left Panruti along with his family.

8. Admittedly, the Plaintiff provided funds to Selvaraj for discharging the loan due to Chinnaraj. As the original sale deed was with the 2nd Defendant's husband, Plaintiff lent money to Selvaraj, orally. After discharging loan amount due, Selvaraj decided to quit Panruti and he orally sold out the area