Possession as a caretaker on behalf of the owner does not amount to adverse possession, and the plaintiff must prove continuous and uninterrupted possession for the statutory period to claim prescriptive title.

JUDGMENT :

S. SOUNTHAR, J.

1. The Second Appeal is filed against the judgment and decree made in A.S.No.32 of 1998, dated 28.4.2000, on the file of Additional District Judge-cum-Chief Judicial Magistrate, Pudukkottai, reversing the judgment and decree made in O.S. No. 1169 of 1988, dated 14.07.1997, on the file of Additional District Munsif, Pudukkottai.

2. The plaintiff in a suit for declaration of prescriptive title and injunction is the appellant. The suit was decreed by the trial Court only in respect of item No. 2 and 3. The appeal filed by the defendants 2 to 5 was allowed and the suit was dismissed in its entirety by the First Appellate Court. Aggrieved by the same, the plaintiff is before this Court.

3. According to the appellant/Plaintiff, the suit property was an ancestral property and he has been in possession and enjoyment of the same for several decades and prescribed title by adverse possession. It was claimed by the plaintiff that in the year 1957, the first defendant attempted to claim title over the suit property by claiming that he had purchased the suit property from Ramasamy Udayar. The said Ramasamy Udayar said to have taken paper delivery of the suit property without disturbing the plaintiff’s physical possession and hence, the claim of the first defendant was resisted by the plaintiff. Thereafter, the first defendant handed over his title document and renounced his claim over the suit property. Accordingly, the plaintiff has been in continuous and uninterrupted possession of the suit property for more than the statutory period and prescribed his title. The first defendant and other defendants colluded together and brought about sham and nominal documents of sale, as if the first defendant sold the suit property to the defendants 2 to 4 and the same will not have effect in law. The defendants made an attempt to interfere with the plaintiff’s possession over the suit property and hence, he was constrained to file the suit for declaration of adverse title and for consequential injunction.

4. The first defendant filed a written statement and denied the claim of the plaintiff’s title and possession over the suit property. It was his case that the suit property originally belongs to one Ramasamy Udayar. He filed a suit against one Palani and Mari of Mudukulathoor Village in O.S.No.491 of 1949, on the file of District Munsif Court, Thanjavur and obtained a decree. When the suit property was brought in Court Auction Sale in execution of the said decree, the above said Ramasamy Udayar purchased the same in Court Auction Sale and thereafter, he possessed and enjoyed the same. The first defendant under the sale deed, dated 18.07.1959 purchased the suit property from Ramasamy Udayar for valid consideration and he has been in possession and enjoyment of the same from the date of purchase. Thereafter, the first defendant sold the suit property to the defendants 2 to 4 on 21.11.1988. Thus claiming title as well as possession over the suit property, the defendants resisted the suit.

5. The fifth defendant is the pendente lite purchaser of the suit property from the second defendant. He also filed a written statement supporting the stand of the other defendants.

6. The plaintiff was examined as P.W.1 and two other witnesses were examined on his side as P.W.2 and P.W.3. On behalf of the plaintiff, 29 documents were marked as Ex.A1 to Ex.A29. On behalf of the defendants, six witnesses were examined as D.W.1 to D.W.6 and 31 documents were marked as Ex.B1to Ex.B31.

7. The trial Court, on appreciation of oral and documentary evidence available on record, granted a decree for declaration of adverse title and injunction in respect of item No.2 and 3 of the suit property namely New S.No.335/3A and 335/C. Aggrieved by the same, the defendants 2 to 5 preferred an appeal in A.S.No.32 of 1998. Along with the First Appeal, the defendants 2 to 4 also filed an application for raising additional evidence in I.A.No.3 of 1999. The First Appellate