The burden of proof for adverse possession lies with the claimant, who must demonstrate hostile possession and animus possidendi, which the plaintiffs failed to establish.

COMMON JUDGMENT

These three second appeals are arising out of a three different appeals in A.S.No.68 of 1998, A.S.No.69 of 1998 and A.S.No.70 of 1998. The above three first appeals were arising out of a common judgment passed in O.S.No.484 of 1994, O.S.No.563 of 1994 and O.S.No.564 of 1994. Since all the second appeals are arising out of a common order, this Court deems it appropriate to pass common judgment in all the three Second Appeals.

2.The plaintiffs in O.S.No.484 of 1994 are the appellants in all the three second appeals. The respondents in S.A.No. 1517 of 1999 are the defendants in O.S.No.484 of 1994. The respondent in S.A.1708 of 1999 and 1797 of 1999 are the plaintiff' in O.S.No.563 of 1994 and O.S.No.564 of 1994. The respondents Mallika and Bhuvaneshwari are subsequent purchasers from the defendants 1 to 3 in O.S.No.484 of 1994.

3. For convenience sake, the parties will referred according to the litigative status in O.S.No.484 of 1994.

4. Brief pleadings in O.S.No.484 of 1994

(a) This plaintiffs submits that the 1^st plaintiff's father Munusamy Gramani and 3 and 4 the plaintiffs are brothers. The 2^nd plaintiff's is mother of the 1^st plaintiff. The 1^st plaintiff's father Munusamy Gramani died leaving behind the plaintiffs 1 and 2 as his legal heirs. The mother of the 2^nd and 4^th plaintiff and Grandmother of the 1^st plaintiff was one Thiayal Nayaki Ammal. She advanced a loan of Rs.300/- on 12.10.1946 to one Kalyani Ammal on usufructuary mortgage of the suit property. According to the plaintiffs, the mortgage was not at all redeemed even after 30 years. The 1^st and 3^rd defendants are the legal heirs of Kalyani Ammal. As per the Limitation Act, 1963 , the usufructuary mortgage has to be redeemed within 30 years, from the redemption period stipulated in the document. According to this plaintiffs, the said Kalyani Ammal did not redeem the mortgage within 30 years. Since 30 years period elapsed, the plaintiffs submits that they become the owner of the schedule mentioned property by perfecting title by adverse possession. This plaintiffs submit that, they and their family members have been in possession and enjoyment of the suit property since 12.10.1946. They further submits that, they have been enjoying the property as owner of the same, and the defendants 1 to 3 have no right, title and interest over the suit property. While so, the defendants 1 to 3, to grab the suit property, have created illegal and void sale deed in favour of the defendants 4 and 5 on 31.10.1994. Since the defendants 4 and 5 are attempting to interfere with the possession, the plaintiffs has come forward with the suit for the relief of declaration and for consequential injunction.

(b) Resisting the above plaint averments, the defendants submit that the suit property is the absolute property of the deceased Kalyani Ammal, who has purchased the same from her vendor Munuswamy Mudaliar under a sale deed dated 29.12.1938. The defendants 1 to 3 admit the execution of the usufructuary mortgage by late Kalyani Ammal in favour of Thiayal Nayaki Ammal. It is the further submission of the defendants that the deceased Kalyani Ammal has mortgaged the suit property along with one another property situated in Urani Village, Madurantakam Taluk comprised in Survey No.148. These defendants further submit that subsequently in the year 1976, the deceased Kalyani Ammal has discharged the mortgage amount and also redeemed the mortgage. According to the defendants, at the time of discharge of the mortgage debt, the deceased Kalyani Ammal had demanded for return of the original mortgage deed dated 12.10.1946, however, the same was not returned to the Kalyani Amma