Title Follows Possession Unless Adverse Possession Is Specifically Pleaded and Proven to Oust Lawful Title

The plaintiffs filed a suit (O.S. No. 247 of 2009) seeking declaration of title and recovery of possession of 14 cents of land in Survey No. 366/2 (subdivided as 366/2B1 and 366/2B5).

The plaintiffs claimed ownership via a 1956 sale deed (Ex.A1/A17) and alleged that the defendant encroached upon the land in June 2007 by constructing a compound wall.

The defendant (Appellant) contended that the suit property was not properly identified, had been acquired by the Government and handed over to them, and that they had been in possession since 1983, making the suit barred by limitation.

Both the Trial Court and the First Appellate Court ruled in favor of the plaintiffs.

1. Whether the courts below were right in decreeing the suit without proper identification of the suit property?

2. Whether the courts below were right in relying upon Ex.A.17 to determine title when the description had no connection with the Schedule?

3. Whether the courts below erred in law in overlooking the alleged acquisition of the property by the Government for the defendant under Ex.B.5 to Ex.B.7?

Section 100 of the Code of Civil Procedure (CPC), which restricts interference in second appeals to substantial questions of law and prohibits tinkering with concurrent findings of fact.

Section 27 and Articles 64/65 of the Limitation Act, 1963, as interpreted in MD. Mohammad Ali v. Jagadish Kalita, establishing that once a plaintiff proves title, they are not obligated to prove possession within 12 years unless the defendant successfully proves adverse possession.

Principles from Lisamma Antony v. Karthiyayani and Subhaga v. Shobha to hold that identification of property based on Commissioner reports and revenue records is a question of fact, not law.

The High Court found that the plaintiffs successfully established title through Ex.A1 and Ex.A17 (1956 sale deed) and revenue records (Ex.A19), which showed the land was subdivided, contradicting the defendant's claim of government acquisition.

The Court noted that the defendant failed to produce any actual land acquisition receipts or proceedings to prove the 14 cents were lawfully handed over to them.

Regarding identification, the Court held that the Advocate Commissioner’s report (Ex.C2) and FMB sketches clearly identified the 14 cents in a "g" shape, and minor discrepancies in boundaries over 50 years did not invalidate title.

On limitation, the Court observed the defendant failed to specifically plead or prove the requirements of adverse possession; thus, since plaintiffs proved title, possession follows title by law.

The Second Appeal was dismissed, the lower court decrees were confirmed, and the Appellant was ordered to handover vacant possession of the 14-cent suit property to the plaintiffs within three months.