Ownership claims through adverse possession require continuous, exclusive possession that is hostile to the true owner, which was not established by the plaintiff.

JUDGMENT

These two appeals arise from the common judgment dated

31.3.2014 in A.S.Nos.96 & 168 of 2013 on the file of the Additional District Court-II, Thiruvananthapuram. The appeal suits arose from the judgment of the Additional Munsiff’s Court (RCC), Thiruvananthapuram in O.S.No.110 of 2009 by which the learned Munsiff dismissed the suit as well as the counterclaim preferred by the defendant.

2. The plaintiff is the appellant. The sole defendant is the brother-in-law of the plaintiff. The plaintiff is residing with his family in the plaint schedule building.

3. The plaintiff pleaded that for the purpose of his business, the defendant had borrowed a sum of Rs.30,000/- as instalments during the early seventies. Though the plaintiff repeatedly demanded repayment of the amount, the defendant failed to return the amount. Thereupon, the plaintiff openly started residing in the building hostile to the title of the defendant from 13.12.1975 onwards. Since then, the plaintiff has been holding continuous and peaceful possession of the plaint schedule property without interruption from the defendant. On 8.6.1983, the defendant caused to send a lawyer’s notice seeking eviction of the plaintiff from the building. On 29.6.1983, the plaintiff sent a reply notice asserting his possession and right over the property adverse to the defendant’s title. According to the plaintiff, from the date of reply to the lawyer’s notice caused to be issued by the defendant, the plaintiff’s possession over the plaint schedule property became adverse to the defendant’s title. Thus, the plaintiff acquired title over the plaint schedule property by adverse possession. The defendant is attempting to sell the plaint schedule property to strangers. Therefore, the plaintiff sought for a decree declaring his title and possession over the plaint schedule property and also for a permanent prohibitory injunction against the defendant.

4. The defendant resisted the plaint and set up a counterclaim. According to the defendant, the plaintiff has no right over the plaint schedule property and has no independent residence in the property. The plaint schedule property and the building therein belong to the defendant, which he acquired as per sale deed No.3563/1966. Therefore, the defendant is in absolute possession and enjoyment of the plaint schedule property. The defendant, along with his mother, was residing in the building. The defendant’s sister occasionally used to visit the property. At that time, the defendant had to shift his residence to Nagarcoil in connection with his business. His mother continued to reside in the plaint schedule property. While so, the defendant’s sister, who is the wife of the plaintiff, also joined the mother to look after her.

The defendant permitted her residence as his mother needed help.

5. Along with his sister, the plaintiff and their son also joined and they were residing in the plaint schedule property as permitted by the defendant. The plaintiff has no independent right or occupation over the plaint schedule property. The defendant’s mother is aged and she is residing with her children according to her desire. The defendant’s mother also used to go to the residence of other children. The defendant would go there on and of whenever he is in Thiruvananthapuram. The entire building and the property are in the absolute possession of the defendant. The defendant has every right to evict the plaintiff and his wife from the building. The present suit is an abuse of the process of law. The claim of the plaintiff that he started residing in the plaint schedule property right from 13.12.1975 is not true. The defendant did not borrow any amount from the plaintiff as he pleaded. The occupation of the plaint schedule property by the plaintiff is not in any independent capacity, but only under the defendant. The plaintiff never acquired title by adverse possession or limitation. The defendant has every right to alienate the property. In the countercl