Mr. K. Kannan, J.: (Oral) - The plaintiffs are the appellants before this court. The plaintiffs had filed a suit for injunction claiming them selves to be in possession of a vacant land and sought for mandatory injunction for removal of construction made by defendants 1 to 3. The plaintiffs claim that the defendants usurped the possession of the other portion also during the pendency of the suit. The defendants set up a plea of adverse possession and stated that they had been in possession of the property by putting up construction and enjoying the same for well over the statutory period of 12 years. The suit was originally decreed and the defendants preferred appeals in CA No. 44 of 2012 and Civil Appeal No. 21 of 2012. Both the appeals were allowed dismissing the suit and finding the plaintiffs as having not proved their title in the property and the relief sought for by them cannot be granted. The present appeal is against the judgment in CA No. 21 of 2012 and the counsel says that the decree sheet in appeal No. 44 has not been prepared as yet and hence the appeal was not brought along side the present appeal.

2. The counsel at the first place points out before me that although the appellants are not having any document of title in relation of the property when they sought for injunction both preventive and mandatory, the very fact that the defendants were making an assertion of right of adverse possession meant that there was an admission of the plaintiffs’ right. The Court ought to have, therefore, decreed the suit. I will hold the arguments to be devoid of legal substance. A person who sets up a plea of adverse possession cannot be taken as conceding the title of the plaintiffs and there is no such proposition possible in the way Article 65 of the Limitation Act has been framed. Article 64 of the Limitation Act applies to a suit for recovery of possession based on previous possession and not on title. In such an event, the date of dispossession will be the starting point and such a plaintiff who files the suit on previous possession could do so within a period of 12 years. The point of law is that such a possessory right could be exercised against any person other than the true owner. If the possession is lost to a true owner and the person in possession establishes his title, the recovery of possession could be defeated. Article 65 sets out completely a different principle that a person who files a suit on title, can be defeated in his claim to recover possession, only if the defendants possession is adverse. The expression used for the commencement of 12 years period in Article 65 is “when the possession of the defendant becomes adverse to the plaintiff”. This adverse holding is a component of “animus possidendi” of the defendant, who holds his possession adversely to the whole world including the plaintiff who sues for possession. In other words, the adverse holding is an assertion of intention of possess in denial of right of any person including the true owner. Such a person need not know who the real owner is. His own intention to possess adversely is the only relevant factor. If the defendant holds his possession in assertion of his own right for a period of 12 years, as a property available vacant for his usurpation of possession, a vigilant owner must claim recoveries before the possession of the defendant adversely held does not fructify into a right to fend off the relief for recovery. Section 27 of the Limitation Act would require to be read conjointly, for, it enacts a rule of public policy that on the determination of the period limited to a person for instituting a suit for possession, the right to such property shall be extinguished. An adverse possession for a period of 12 years will cause extinguishment of right of the person who is the owner. Assuming the worst that the defendant is in possession of the property without right and the plaintiff sues for the relief of mandatory injunction to cla