IMPORTANT POINT
The central legal point established in the judgment is the requirement to prove possession and animus possidendi for adverse possession, as well as the necessity to establish hostile title to the knowledge of the owner in cases of adverse possession.

JUDGMENT :

(Prayer: Second Appeal filed under Section 100 of the Code of Civil Procedure, to allow the Second Appeal and set aside the judgment and decree passed in A.S. No.24 of 2014 dated 29.07.2015 on the file of Subordinate Judge, Tiruttani confirming the judgment and decree made in O.S. No.198 of 2011 dated 08.07.2014 on the file of District Munsiff Court, Tiruttani.)

1. The plaintiff who suffered concurrent findings before the Courts below is the appellant.

2. The parties are described as per their litigative status before the trial Court.

3. The case of the plaintiff is that the suit property was purchased by the plaintiff under a sale deed dated 27.09.1972 and thereafter, she has been in possession and enjoyment of the suit property measuring 53 cents and paying kist for the suit property. According to the plaintiff, the total extent in the Survey No.136/4 was 2.33 acres and the same has been subdivided into 136/4A, 136/4B and 136/4C and the suit property was assigned S.F.No.136/4C. The plaintiff came to know that patta had been issued to the second defendant in respect of suit property and taking advantage of the same, the defendants attempted to trespass into the suit property on 25.10.2011 and that they were openly proclaiming that they would not allow the plaintiff to step into the suit property. The plaintiff therefore, instituted the suit to declare her right, title and interest over the suit property and also for a consequential permanent injunction.

4. The defendants resisted the said suit and filed a written statement admitting the purchase of 53 cents by the plaintiff under sale deed dated 27.09.1972. However, the allegation that the plaintiff was in possession of the suit property and the defendants threatened to take over the suit property by trespass, were all denied. It is also stated that the plaintiff was never in possession and it was only the second defendant alone who was in possession and enjoyment, for over the statutory period and thereby, the second defendant acquired right by adverse possession also.

5. It is further contended by the defendants that the plaintiff's husband is none else than the brother of the first defendant's mother and even though the plaintiff purchased the suit property in 1972, she was never in possession and enjoyment at any point of time and it was only the first defendant's father, Jayarama Reddy, who was enjoying the suit property openly and to the knowledge of the plaintiff. According to the defendants, the plaintiff has no patta and was never paying taxes or kist and it was only the second defendant who has been in enjoyment and before him, Jayarama Reddy was in possession and enjoyment. In fact, second defendant claims to have been raising Paddy, Ground-nuts and Casurina crops in the suit property.

6. The trial Court dismissed the suit finding that the plaintiff had not established her allegations in the plaint and though P.W.1 stated that she got patta and had paid kist receipts, she has never produced any of the documents before the Court. It was also found by the trial Court that the plaintiff herself admitted that the suit property was surrounded on all sides, by the property of the defendants and the defendants were in possession of the suit property. The trial Court also noticed that the revenue records produced by the defendants and held that the defendants established possession right from 1977 onwards and it was well over the statutory period of 12 years. The trial Court also found that though the plaintiff claimed to have mortgaged the suit property to the Bank and raised loan, the same was not proved by production of any documentary evidence in that regard. The trial Court also applied Section 27 of the Limitation Act, 1963 and found against the plaintiff for not filing suit for recovery of possession within 12 years and the suit filed after a lapse of 39 years from 1972 and 26 years from 1985 was held to be clearly barred by limitation.

7. The plaintiff preferred