A claim of adverse possession necessitates proving hostile ownership and fulfilling specific legal criteria, with the burden of proof shifting between parties during litigation.

JUDGMENT

This Second Appeal is filed against the judgment and decree dated 06.10.2010 passed in A.S.No.81 of 1998 on the file of the Additional District Judge/Fast Track Court No.1, Thoothukudi, modifying the judgment and decree, dated 26.02.1998 made in O.S.No.667 of 1996 on the file of the Principal District Munsif Court, Thoothukudi.

2. The appellants are the plaintiffs in O.S.No.667 of 1996 on the file of the Principal District Munsif Court, Thoothukudi. The respondents are the defendants in that suit.

3. The appellants/plaintiffs have filed the suit for declaration and permanent injunction against the respondents/defendants.

4. For the sake of convenience, the parties are referred as plaintiffs and defendants as arrayed in O.S.No.667 of 1996 on the file of the Principal District Munsif Court, Thoothukudi.

5. The Case of the plaintiff:

The 2^nd plaintiff’s father Sathanantha Sundaram Pillai, purchased 10/12 shares in the suit property and the other two properties through a registered sale deed, dated 05.01.1949, from the original owners. He also purchased 1/12 share from one Nainar for Rs.75/- by way of oral sale on 20.05.1950. The remaining 1/12 was in excess. So, the entire property was in the enjoyment and possession of the said Sathanantha Sundaram Pillai. Later, he executed the sale deed, dated 08.11.1975 in favour of the second plaintiff and his sister Vaikunthammal. Then Vaikunthammal sold her 1/2 share in the properties to the first plaintiff through a registered sale deed, dated 14.12.1977. The plaintiffs became absolute owners of the entire property. Whileso, again few vendors of the Sathanantha Sundaram Pillai, namely Senthivel, Alagumuthu and Mundan and the legal heirs of vendor Maadan, sold the property by creating fraudulent sale deed to Sudalai, Sivanainthan and Alagumuthu on 19.07.1949. In turn, the subsequent purchaser st and other legal heirs i.e., defendants 2 to 5 sold the same to the 1 defendant by another fraudulent sale deed, dated 21.03.1994, thereby, the defendants have been interfering with the enjoyment and possession of the plaintiffs. Hence, the plaintiffs filed the suit for declaration that the suit property belonged to the plaintiffs and for permanent injunction from interfering with their possession and enjoyment.

6. The Case of the 1st Defendant :

The 1st defendant denied the purchase of property by Sathanantha Sundaram Pillai through sale deeds, dated 05.01.1949 and 20.05.1950 and consequent sale nd deed by Sathanantha Sundaram Pillai in favour of 2nd plaintiff and his sister on 08.11.1975. The 1 defendant also denied the sale of 1/2 share by sister in favour nd of 2 plaintiff. One Perumal vagairah had 1/6 undivided share in the properties in S.Nos.481, 441 and 451 and they sold the same to Sudalai and Sivanainthan on 19.07.1949. So also one Balu sold his shares to Sudalai and Sivanainthan on 08.08.1949. After the death of Sudalai and Sivanainthan, the 1^st defendant purchased the aforesaid property from the legal heirs of Sudalai since Sivanainthan died without any issue. The averments of the fraudulent sale deed are denied. The said Sathanantha Sundaram Pillai purchased a portion of the property, but tried to enjoy the property in entirety. The property in entirety is not belonged to the plaintiffs.

7. The defendants 2 to 5 remained ex-parte in the suit before the trial Court.

8. During trial, on the plaintiffs' side, the 1st plaintiff was examined as P.W.1 st and Ex.A.1 to Ex.A.23 were marked. On the defendants' side, the 1 defendant and one Sudalai were examined as D.W.1 & D.W.2 and Ex.B.1 to Ex.B.9 were marked.

9. The trial Court/Principa