To establish adverse possession, the claimant must provide clear and convincing evidence of continuous and open possession for the statutory period, negating any prior claims to the property.

JUDGMENT

*************

The Second Appeal is directed against the judgment and decree made in A.S.No.29 of 2007, dated 7.2.2008, on the file of Subordinate Judge, Srivilliputhur confirming the judgment and decree made in O.S.No.1147 of 2004, dated 14.3.2007, on the file of Principal District Munsif, Srivilliputhur.

2.The unsuccessful plaintiff in the suit is the appellant. The suit is filed for declaration of title and injunction in respect of Item No.1 of suit A schedule property. The plaintiff also prayed for mandatory injunction to remove the construction and for recovery of possession in respect of Item No.2 of suit A schedule property. The plaintiff also prayed for partition of his half share in the suit B Schedule property. The suit was dismissed by the trial Court in respect of Item No.1 and 2 of the suit A schedule property and a decree for partition was granted as prayed for in respect of suit B schedule property. Aggrieved by the negatived portion, the plaintiff preferred an appeal.The defendant has not filed any appeal challenging the partition decree in respect of suit B schedule property. Therefore the decree for partition granted by the trial Court in respect of suit B schedule property has attained finality. The first appeal was confined to item No.1 and 2 of suit A schedule property and the First Appellate Court had confirmed the findings of the trial Court and dismissed the appeal. Aggrieved by the concurrent findings of the Courts below, the plaintiff has come by way of this Second Appeal. In view of the fact that the decree for partition regarding suit B Schedule property is not questioned by the defendant by filing First Appeal, the Second Appeal is confined to Item No.1 and 2 of suit A schedule property.

3.According to the appellant/Plaintiff, suit A schedule property originally belonged to one Annamuthu @ Anna Maria, wife of Vedanayagam. She executed a settlement deed on 29.4.1967 in favour of Koomapatti Christian Missionary. It was claimed that the said Christian missionary enjoyed the property from the date of settlement and they permitted the plaintiff to enjoy the suit A schedule property in the year 1984 by putting up a house and cattle shed. The plaintiff enjoyed the property under permission from the said Christian missionary and has been in possession and enjoyment of the same for more than the statutory period openly and continuously. Thus the plaintiff acquired prescriptive title to the suit A schedule property. It was also claimed that the patta for the suit property was also issued in favour of the plaintiff recognizing his possession.The defendant who owns property on the eastern side of the suit A schedule property, taking advantage of the absence of the plaintiff in the locality, encroached the eastern protion of the suit A schedule property and had put up a construction. As the defendant also attempted to encroach the remaining portion in Suit A schedule property, the suit was filed seeking declaration and injunction in respect of item 1 of ‘A’ schedule property. The encroached portion is shown as item No.2 of suit A schedule property. The suit was laid for mandatory injunction and recovery of possession in respect of Item.2 of ‘A’ schedule.

4.The claim of the plaintiff was resisted by the defendant on the ground that they had been in possession and enjoyment of the suit A schedule property.The defendant specifically denied the claim of the plaintiff that he enjoyed the property from the year 1984 and enjoyed the same adversely for more than the statutory period. Thus denying the title as well as the possession of the plaintiff over the item 1 of suit A schedule property and denying his title over the second item of A schedule property, the defendants sought for dismissal of the suit.

5.Before the trial Court, the plaintiff was examined as P.W.1 and yet another witness was examined as P.W.2. On behalf of the plaintiff, 13 documents were marked as Ex.A1 to Ex.A13. The defendant was examined as