Adverse possession requires open, continuous, and hostile possession; permission negates hostile claim. The court ruled against the defendants, affirming the plaintiff's ownership of the property.

JUDGMENT :

G.JAYACHANDRAN, J.

The suit is filed for declaration and possession was allowed by the trial Court. Hence, the aggrieved defendants are before this Court through Appeal Suit.

2. The averments in the plaint are as below:-

Rajambalambal @ Rasambalambal is the paternal grandmother of the plaintiff. She settled the suit property in favour of the plaintiff and his brother Krishnamoorthy through a registered settlement deed dated 03.01.1957. At that time, both the beneficiaries were minors hence their father Nataraja Boopathi was appointed as guardian. Rajambalambal died on 24.05.1967. Krishnamoorthy, the brother of the plaintiff died on 19.06.1962. The plaintiff attained majority in the year 1969. The plaintiff's father died on 21.03.1985. After attaining majority, the plaintiff is in exclusive possession and enjoyment of the property. In the year 1990, the 1^st defendant, a distant relative of the plaintiff was engaged by the plaintiff for constructing a house at Cuddalore. The 1^st defendant and his family members were permitted to stay in the suit property and supervise the construction work. Even after completion of construction, the 1^st defendant and his family continued in possession of the suit property as a permissive occupant. Since the plaintiff was employed in the Government service, he was a landlord in absentee. Taking advantage of his absence, the defendants gained access to the suit property by creating documents and started claiming ownership by adverse possession. They are presently occupying 16 x 20 feet of suit property in the building put up by the plaintiff. On 26.08.1994, the 1^st defendant agreed to vacate the place and executed a deed of handing over possession. Instead of vacating the building, the defendants started altering the structure. After giving criminal complaint and notice terminating the permission granted to occupy, the suit for declaration and delivery of possession is filed.

3. The averment in the written statement:-

In the written statement, the defendants have resisted the suit on the ground of maintainability. According to the defendants, the suit property belongs to their paternal grandfather Kuppusamy. The said Kuppusamy had two sons namely, Nataraja Boopathi and Duraivel. Nataraja Boopathi married one Mangavaram and had three children, namely, N.Thulasingam (the plaintiff), Krishnamoorthy (deceased) and Gunasundari (3^rd defendant). Nataraja Boopathi, owned two houses, gave one thatched house to his daughter (3^rd defendant) and another tilted house to the plaintiff. The defendants are residing in the house constructed on the suit property and the plaintiff resident next to the suit property. The 1^st defendant, along with his wife, (the 3^rd defendant) and their children are living in the suit property without any interruption from any body. The house in the suit land was built by the 1^st defendant from out of his income. The suit property was mortgaged by Nataraja Boopathi to conduct his daughter's marriage. The mortgage was redeemed by the 1^st defendant. In the year 1989, the 1^st defendant demolished the thatched structure and put up a building over it and residing in the house. On 25.07.1989, due to fire mishap, the 1^st defendant house got gutted. Subsequently, in the year 1990, the plaintiff agreed to sell the suit property to the 1^st defendant, but despite persistent demand and legal notice, he had not come forwa