A claim of adverse possession must be specifically pleaded and proven with a definite starting point of hostile possession; mere long-term occupation of a property, without proof of hostile intent or specific pleading, does not extinguish the title of the rightful owner.

JUDGMENT

1.This Second Appeal has been preferred as against the judgment and decree dated 22.12.2017 passed in A.S. No.27 of 2012 on the file of the Subordinate Judge, Kanchipuram.

2.For the sake of convenience and brevity, the parties will be referred as plaintiff, first defendant and second defendant as ranked in the Trial Court.

3.The deceased plaintiff Balambal has filed a suit in O.S.No.267 of 2008 before the Principal District Munsif, Kanchipuram and the same was decreed through judgment and decree dated 22.02.2012. Challenging the said judgment and decree, the defendants, who are the respondents herein have preferred an Appeal Suit before the Subordinate Judge, Kanchipuram in A.S. No.27 of 2012 and the same was allowed by setting aside the judgment and decree passed by the Trial Court. Since the plaintiff died during the pendency of the case, her legal heirs/appellants herein were brought on record and they filed this Second Appeal.

4.The brief facts of the plaint are as follows: The suit schedule property was absolutely belonged to the plaintiff. She purchased the same from one M.Vadivel and Krishnan through a Registered Sale Deed dated 25.12.1978. The first defendant is her husband's brother's daughter and the second defendant is the husband of the first defendant. After purchase of the property, the plaintiff had put up construction in the property and permitted the defendants to reside there before 10 years and the defendants are in permissive possession of the suit property. The defendants are trying to claim title over the property and they also put up an un-authorized construction, without the consent or permission of the plaintiff. Therefore, the plaintiff issued notice to them on 20.03.2004 to vacate the premises and after receipt of the notice, they have not vacated the premises. Therefore, she filed the suit for declaration and recovery of possession against the defendants.

5.The brief averments of the written statement filed by the second defendant are as follows:

(a)The suit is not maintainable and the plaintiff is not entitled to any relief as prayed for in the plaint and the second defendant denied all the allegations contained in the plaint except those that are specifically admitted by the defendants. The averments in respect of the purchase of the property and the construction put up in the suit schedule mentioned ‘abcd’ portion and the permissive possession are denied. Originally, the property bearing Door No.43, Bavaji Street, Kanchipuram, belonged to one Chinnakannu Pillai. The said Chinnakannu Pillai died long time back leaving his 3 sons and 2 daughters, i.e. (1) Jayarama Pillai, (2) Kothanda Pillai, (3) Duraisamy Pillai, (4) Parvathy and (5) Krishnaveni. The plaintiff is the daughter of Parvathy and the first defendant is the daughter of Jayarama Pillai. One Padma is the daughter of the said Krishnaveni. The said Duraisamy Pillai married the said Krishnaveni's daughter Padma.

(b)In or about the year 1985, a family arrangement took place to divide the property bearing Door No.43, Bavaji Street, Kanchipuram between the above said 3 brothers. The said Jayarama Pillai, who is the father of the first defendant, has agreed to give his share to his brother Kothanda Pillai. In lieu of the same, the said Kothanda Pillai and his wife Balammal have agreed to gi