Long possession alone does not establish adverse possession; clear evidence of hostile intent against the rightful owner is required.

JUDGMENT :

V.SIVAGNANAM, J.

The Second Appeal has been filed against the Judgment and Decree passed in A.S.No.53 of 2002 dated 22.04.2003 on the file of the Principal District Court, Karur reversing the Judgment and Decree passed in O.S.No.539 of 1998 dated 20.02.2002 on the file of the Principal District Munsif, Karur.

2. For the sake of convenience, the parties are referred to as per their ranking in the Trial Court in O.S.No.539 of 1998 on the file of the Principal District Munsif, Karur.

3. The plaintiffs in O.S.No.539 of 1998 on the file of the Principal District Munsif, Karur, are the appellants herein.

4. The averments of the plaint are as follows:

The suit property is situated at Puliyur village. The plaintiff purchased the suit property on 11.04.1974 from one Nallammal, K.Muthausamy and his son Thagavel, minor son Elango and the minor daughter of Nallammal by name, Arukkani. The original sale deed is pledged with the Bank and the xerox copy is filed along with plaint. At the time of sale, the suit property was under usufructuary mortgage to one Ammaiyappa Gounder and it was in his possession. The balance loan amount was paid by the plaintiff during the month of Chithirai in 1978 and the property was left to the possession of the plaintiff. The plaintiff and the prior owners of the suit property enjoyed the properties without any hindrance. In the suit land, there is venga stones ridge east to west in the suit property. After the purchase and possession, the plaintiff spent Rs.80,000/- and dug a well. She also spent Rs.20,000/- to construct a compound wall in the well. She also spent Rs.17,000/- to convent the land as irrigated land. She also installed an oil engine in the suit well at a cost of Rs.15,000/- and irrigated water. Subsequently, on 20.11.1980, she obtained HP electric motor and subsequently, it was converted to 7.5 HP electric motor. She also installed a submergible motor-pump in the suit well. The southern boundary of the suit property was previously a ridge of Venga stones. Subsequently, the plaintiff cultivated 30 coconuts trees in the above ridge and the coconut trees are aged about 20 years. The defendants have no manner of right or enjoyment on the north of the above the ridge. Subsequently, the plaintiff's land was subdivided and survey number 1663/1 was to the plaintiff. As per the patta, the plaintiff is entitled for Hec.1.30.0. The plaintiff' is paying kist for the past 24 years. Revenue Records are in favour of the plaintiff. Recently, the defendants obtained the thumb impression of the plaintiff for the purpose of measuring these lands. But, subsequently, the defendants claimed a legal right over the suit property and the defendants and their men also attempted to tresspass into the suit property and also to measure the same. It was prevented by the plaintiff. Hence, the suit is filed for the relief of declaration of title of the plaintiff on the suit property and also for a permanent injunction restraining the defendants from interfering with the peaceful possession and enjoyment of the plaintiff in the suit property.

5.The defendants filed a written statement and contested the suit.

The averments of the written statement are as follows:-

The defendants are brothers and they are entitled to the southern half of the suit survey number 1663 and it is their ancestral property. The defendants are entitled for an extent of Ас. 2.69 1/2 cents. The plaintiff is entitled to the northern half in the suit survey number to an extent of Ac. 2.69 1/2 cents. The plaintiff purchased the said property by a sale deed on 11.04.1978 from the original owners Nallammal and others. The plaintiff can claim title only from the said date. The suit survey number was never measured by metes and bound