Possession must be hostile and exclusive for adverse possession claims; permissive possession cannot lead to title by prescription.

ORAL JUDGMENT

All the above Second Appeals are taken up together for consideration as they were ordered to be taken up as such.

FACTS IN SECOND APPEAL NO. 19 OF 2007

2. The Respondent filed the suit for declaration and restoration of possession. It was the case of the Respondent that he is lawful owner of a landed property known as “Dhansalichem Bata” of nachini cultivation with dwelling house therein situated at Manora, Raia, described in Land Registration No. 32861 and is bounded towards the east by the property heirs of Jose Filipe Menezes, towards the west by that of Arnaldo M. de Menezes and brothers, towards the north by the road and towards the south by the property of same name of Apolinario Abundancio de Quadros . The said property is inscribed in the name of Filipe Mariano Quadros in the Land Registration Officer and is surveyed in the Record of Rights under no. 349/1 having an area of 6675 square metres besides 125 square metres of the house and 25 square metres of the well. It was further the case of the Respondent that said Filipe constructed the well and the house out of the money he received from a lottery having got the first prize. The said Filipe expired on 03.10.1935 leaving behind his widow Antonia Colaco and parents as his legal heirs. The parents decided to keep themselves all the moveables against their half share in the property and left the suit property and the house for his widow and, accordingly, a Deed was executed before the Notary on 04.11.1936. It is further the case that upon the death of said Filipe, his parents came to the property with their children and sister of Appellant no.1 was also residing with them as she was young of 16 to 18 years old and the Respondent was five to six years old. It is further their case that in the year 1940, the Appellant was born as a illegitimate son of the said sister followed by illegitimate daughter who lived with her husband at Manora. It is further their case that the Respondent had left for Mumbai for getting a job in the Railways and after sometime he took the widow of late Filipe Mariano Quadros to Bombay due to her love and affection. It is further their case that his sister alongwith the parents and the Appellant no.1 had gone for work on the mines and the Respondent used to come to Goa and reside in the suit house. After the liberation of Goa, the Respondent came to Goa with his family and stayed in the house as often they wished without any objection from said Ana. The Respondent were always welcomed by the said Ana and the relationship between Respondent and his sister Ana were actually cordial and good. The reception of the daughter of the Respondent was also held in the suit house in the year 1971. It is further their case that the widow of the said Filipe had gifted a property to the Respondent on 07.05.1985. This act excited the Appellant no.2 who raised claims over the suit property and also claimed that it was his mother's house. But, however, the Appellant no.1 filed a suit bearing no. R.C.S. No. 202/1986 and obtained Order to restrain the Appellants and also the widow of Filipe from interfering in suit property and the suit house with the exception of entrance room and verandah. Accordingly, they prayed for other reliefs as mentioned in the plaint.

3. The Appellants filed their written statement raising their preliminary objections on the ground that the suit deserves to be dismissed on account of inordinate delay. According to the Appellants, the mother of said Appellant no.1 said late Ana Quadros had been in actual possession and enjoyment of the suit property till her death