JUDGMENT: The first plaintiff is the second wife of late one Karupusamy Nadar. The second, third and fourth plaintiffs are the sons and daughter of the said Karupusamy Nadar. The fifth plaintiff was the wife of late Natarajan Nadar. The said Natarajan Nadar was the son of late Karupusamy Nadar. Sixth and seventh plaintiffs are the son and daughter of late Natarajan Nadar respectively. 2. The first and second defendants are the wife and son of late Karupusamy Nadar respectively. The properties referred to in the plaint schedule was originally purchased by late Karupusamy Nadar under a registered sale deed dated 2.12.1942. The said Karupusamy Nadar died intestate in the year 1952 leaving behind the son Natarajan Nadar and his wife. 3. The plaintiffs 1 to 7 are the legal heirs of the deceased Karupusamy Nadar. During the course of enjoyment a patta bearing No.133 was obtained in favour of the first plaintiff. The said property situate in survey No.101/37 of Perur Village. Thereafter, the first plaintiff regularly paid the property tax for the land, wherein, the superstructure was already constructed. The entire property tax was paid in the name of the first plaintiff and also for the said superstructure situate in door No.101/12. 4. The defendants 1 and 2 based on the close relationship with the first plaintiff executed a simple mortgage deed on 31.7.1967 for Rs.600 and in lieu of interest payable on the mortgage the first defendant was put in possession of the suit properties. After in or about eight years the said mortgage was redeemed. As a result of that the said mortgage was cancelled. However, the defendants obtained a signature of the plaintiffs 1 and 2 in some stamped papers as if some fresh loan amount have been paid to the plaintiffs and on that pretext the defendants 1 and 2 were in possession over the suit property and the said possession was given to the defendants in lieu of interest payable on the said loan and on that basis they were continued in possession over the suit property. 5. The entire loan stood in the name of the plaintiffs 1 to 3 in lieu of interest was completely discharged. Thereafter, the plaintiffs called upon the defendants to hand over the possession of the suit property. 5. The entire loan stood in the name of the plaintiffs 1 to 3 in lieu of interest was completely discharged. Thereafter, the plaintiffs called upon the defendants to hand over the possession of the suit property. The defendants instead of surrendering the said suit property to the plaintiffs, they lodged a false and frivolous complaint against the plaintiffs 1 to 3 as if the plaintiffs dispossessed the defendants unlawfully from the suit property. Thereafter, the plaintiffs issued a legal notice to the defendants calling upon them to deliver the suit property. Meanwhile the defendant managed to get the house tax assessment in their name. 6. In this connection, the plaintiffs have written a letter to the Perur Town Panchayat with the request to retransfer the property tax assessment in favour of the plaintiffs without any basis or right over the said property. The defendants declined to deliver the vacant possession to the plaintiffs. The defendants not only obtained house tax assessment in their name but also went to the extent of denying the title of the plaintiffs. Hence, the suit was filed for declaring that the plaintiffs are the absolute and exclusive owners of the suit property and consequently directing the defendants to put that plaintiffs in vacant possession of the suit property and direction the defendants to pay the future mesne profits. 7. The averments made in the written statement are as follows. 8. The suit property is a house site and patta issued by the land updating scheme authority was without jurisdiction. The defendants, who are in possession, had no notice of the proceedings and the plaintiffs by false representation seems to have obtained orders behind the back of the defendants. The defendants put the superstructure and in the house tax demand tax register of the panchayat the name of the defendants has been registered. The defendants have been paying property tax and kist in the name of the first defendant as owner. It is not correct to state that the defendants obtained the signature of the plaintiff on stamped papers. The defendants were in possession of the property in lieu of interest payable on the mortgage and that the defendants have been in possession even after return of the mortgage deeds in lieu of interest payable are totally false and the averments are contradictory which uphold the entire claim made by the plaintiff. The defendants were in possession of the property in lieu of interest payable on the mortgage and that the defendants have been in possession even after return of the mortgage deeds in lieu of interest payable are totally false and the averments are contradictory which uphold the entire claim made by the plaintiff. The defendants are not aware of the notice issued by the plaintiffs. The plaintiffs have caused the notice with wrong address to create evidence. The mortgage amount due under the deed dated 31.7.1967 had been paid within two years and the documents had been returned to the mortgagors. the defendants have been under open exclusive and continuous possession of the suit property form 1970 to the knowledge of the plaintiffs and the defendants have prescribed title to the property by adverse possession. The plaintiffs tried to resurrect a discharged mortgage in sustain the false suit claim by falsely pleading that the possession of defendants in lieu of mortgage interest. The plaintiffs have no manner of right in the suit property. The suit for declaration and possession is barred by way of limitation. 9. At the time of admission of the second appeal the following substantial questions of law were framed: (a) When once permissive possession had come to an end whether further continuance of possession cannot at all be said to be be adverse to the owner? (b) In any event when the mortgage was discharged the continuance of possession thereafter by the mortgage can be said to be only permissive? 10. According to the plaintiff, the suit property was purchased by one Karupusamy Nadar under a registered sale deed dated 2.12.1942. Thereafter, his son Natarajan Nadar died. The second wife of Karupusamy Nadar and the wife and sons and daughters of Natarajan Nadar became legal heirs of the Karupusamy Nadar. 11. According to the plaintiffs that they mortgaged the site and hut to the defendants on 31.7.1967 for Rs.600. Thereafter, the said mortgage was redeemed by the plaintiffs after eight years. Thereafter, his son Natarajan Nadar died. The second wife of Karupusamy Nadar and the wife and sons and daughters of Natarajan Nadar became legal heirs of the Karupusamy Nadar. 11. According to the plaintiffs that they mortgaged the site and hut to the defendants on 31.7.1967 for Rs.600. Thereafter, the said mortgage was redeemed by the plaintiffs after eight years. However, the plaintiffs have stated that after expiry of the said mortgage, the defendants obtained the signatures of the plaintiffs 1 and 2 in some stamped papers as if fresh advance has been made and that they have been in continuous possession in the suit property in lieu of the interest payable on the subsequent loan alleged to have been obtained by the plaintiffs and in lieu of the interest the defendants were allowed to occupy the suit property. When the plaintiffs demanded the defendants to submit the accounts for settling dues payable to the defendants and further when they asked for the delivery of possession of the suit property, the defendants declined to return the same. Meanwhile, the plaintiffs came to know that the defendants managed to obtain some house tax assessment in their name as if they are the owners of the suit property. Therefore, the plaintiffs issued a legal notice to the defendants on 10.7.1987 under Ex.A.20 asking the defendants to vacate and deliver the vacant possession of the suit property. 12. Aggrieved against the legal action initiated by the plaintiffs, the defendants lodged a police complaint before the police alleging that the plaintiffs attempted to vacate the defendants from the suit property by-passing the due process of law. 13. In such circumstances, the plaintiff preferred a suit against the defendants for the relief of declaration. 14. Even though the plaintiffs have stated that the mortgage was redeemed after the expiry of eight years from date of the said mortgage, no document has been produced in support of their claim. Only P.W.1 in her evidence has stated that after the expiry of eight years, the said mortgage was redeemed. 15. It is further stated by P.W.1 that during the year 1979, the plaintiffs received a sum of Rs.3,000 from the defendants and in lieu of interest the defendants were permitted to stay in the suit property in lieu of interest for the said amount. In this regard, the plaintiffs have not made any pleadings in the plaint. 15. It is further stated by P.W.1 that during the year 1979, the plaintiffs received a sum of Rs.3,000 from the defendants and in lieu of interest the defendants were permitted to stay in the suit property in lieu of interest for the said amount. In this regard, the plaintiffs have not made any pleadings in the plaint. P.W.1 would state that the patta under Ex.A-3 was issued in the name of the plaintiffs and they paid the property tax and water tax in their names. It was denied by P.W.1 that the property did not belong to them. 16. On a careful perusal of Ex.A-1 and Ex.A-2, it is seen that the said property belongs to the plaintiffs. To prove the ownership of the suit property, P.W.1 produced Exs.A-4 to A-7 kist receipts, which stood in the name of the first plaintiff, and she also produced house tax receipts stood in the name of the first plaintiff under Exs.A-8 to A-11. 17. To prove the said payment P.W.1 produced Ex.A-12 to Ex.A-18. These payments were made by the plaintiffs during 1968 to 1972. 18. On a careful perusal of the relevant documents produced by P.W.1 would establish the fact that the suit property belongs to the plaintiffs. Even though the plaintiffs have stated that after the expiry of the said mortgage the defendants obtained signature of the plaintiffs and the defendants were permitted to continue to stay in the suit property in lieu of interest, for proving this fact the plaintiffs have not produced any relevant documents. P.W.1 has stated this fact only in her oral evidence. 19. In such circumstances, it could not be stated that the defendants have been in continuous possession of the suit property in lieu of the interest. However, since the plaintiffs admitted the possession of the defendants in the suit property from 1970 onwards, this Court has to decide on what basis the defendants were in continuous possession of the suit property in the absence of any agreement. 20. According to the plaintiffs without any basis, the defendants have been in continuous possession of the suit property from 1975. In this juncture, it is stated by the defendant that the father of the second defendant put up the superstructure and thereafter they paid house tax and kist to the suit property in their name. 21. 20. According to the plaintiffs without any basis, the defendants have been in continuous possession of the suit property from 1975. In this juncture, it is stated by the defendant that the father of the second defendant put up the superstructure and thereafter they paid house tax and kist to the suit property in their name. 21. It is the definite case of the defendants that even though the defendants have agreed that the said mortgage dated 31.7.1967 was rendered by the plaintiffs within eight years and thereafter, the defendants husband came into the possession over the suit property during the year 1970 with the knowledge of the plaintiffs. 22. It is the definite case of the plaintiffs that first they put up a thatched shed in the suit premises and thereafter, they build a pucca superstructure. In such circumstances, the defendants claimed adverse possession against the plaintiffs. To prove the case of the defendants D.W.1 to D.W.3 were examined. According to D.W.1, she has stated that the land originally a poramboke land, wherein his father constructed a house in the year 1960. Thereafter, they paid the house tax to that house under Ex.B-1. It is stated by the D.W.1 that her mother has constructed a tile house. For proving the construction over the suit property D.W.1 produced Ex.B-2. They also produced Ex.B-4 house tax transfer notice, Ex.B-5 and Ex.B-6 house tax receipts, Ex.B-7 water connection receipt, and Exs.B-9 and B-10 Kist receipts. 23. As already discussed above, even though the defendants produced certain documents, merely on the basis of those documents the defendants cannot exercise or claim any right over the suit property as they are not owners of the suit property. Even though the defendants have claimed that the suit property was constructed by them even during the year 1960, for proving the same they have not produced any materials. 24. Moreover, such plea has not at all be raised as stated in the written statement. At one point of time, the defendants claimed the property as a poramboke land for proving this fact the defendants have not produced any materials. 25. It is to be pointed out that the further continuation of the possession by the defendants in the suit property after the expiry of permissive possession, could be considered to be a wrongful possession. At one point of time, the defendants claimed the property as a poramboke land for proving this fact the defendants have not produced any materials. 25. It is to be pointed out that the further continuation of the possession by the defendants in the suit property after the expiry of permissive possession, could be considered to be a wrongful possession. Further, the defendants have not established that from which year they came into occupation. No such plea was raised by the defendants in this regard in their written statement. For proving the adverse possession, the defendant has not at all produced any materials that they were in uninterrupted possession for the specific period. 26. In this connection, the learned counsel appearing for the respondent would point out that the evidence adduced by D.W.1 is completely contrary to the pleadings. Further, the learned counsel would point out that for proving the defendant case, the defendants 1 and 2 have not adduced any satisfactory evidence that they were in continuous possession and uninterrupted possession over the suit property for over a statutory period. 27. It is seen that even though the defendants were allowed to continue in the suit property without any basis. However, their possession after the expiry of the mortgage period could be not considered as a permissive possession. As already stated above, their possession over the suit property could be considered as a wrongful possession. 28. Further, it is pointed out that the learned counsel appearing for the respondent that the plaintiffs initiated the eviction proceedings against the defendants within the prescribed period. It is seen that they instituted the suit against the defendants for the delivery of possession dated 20.10.1987. In such circumstances, the defendants cannot claim that they were in possession over the suit property without any interruption. 29. Further, when the defendants have come forward to claim adverse possession against the true owner the burden only lies in the defendants to prove the same. In the instant case, as already discussed above, the suit property belongs to the plaintiffs. For proving the same, the plaintiffs produced the documentary evidence as well as they adduced oral evidence. 30. As already discussed above, even though the defendants claimed that they are the owners of the property, for proving the same they have not produced any documentary evidence. For proving the same, the plaintiffs produced the documentary evidence as well as they adduced oral evidence. 30. As already discussed above, even though the defendants claimed that they are the owners of the property, for proving the same they have not produced any documentary evidence. Even for claiming adverse possession against the plaintiffs, their continuous possession over the suit property was questioned by the plaintiffs within the prescribed period. In such circumstances, even though the defendants were in possession for a certain period in the suit property without any basis or any agreement, their possession was subsequently questioned by the plaintiffs within the prescribed time by way of issuing a legal notice. Following the said legal notice they have also instituted a civil suit against the defendants. In such circumstances, the defendants cannot claim adverse possession. 31. To sustain the case of the plaintiffs the learned counsel appearing for the respondents relied on the following decisions. (a) Sabariaradimai v. Maria Retnam, (2002)1 C.T.C. 665 ; (b) Subramania Bathar v. Srinivasa Bathar and nine others, (2002)1 L.W. 120 . In the latter decision, this Court held as follows: “Now, coming to the defendant’s possession over the statutory period, it goes without saying that the burden of proof is on the defendants who claim title by adverse possession. It has been held in Roohnisha Beevi and fifteen others v. A.M.M.Madhu Mohamed and twentynine others, (1998)1 L.W. 244 already referred to that ”there could be no equities in favour of a person pleading adverse possession, as he is trying to deny the rights of the true owner and that it is for him to establish the facts necessary to prove adverse possession. It is his duty to state clearly the facts and the nature of the possession as hostile to the real owner.“ No document worth the name has been produced to show the respondents’ possession prior to 1970. The suit was filed in 1980.” 32. On a careful analysis of the materials produced by the plaintiffs and also considering the oral and documentary evidence, I do not find merit in this appeal and thereby the appeal falls. 33. Accordingly, the second appeal is dismissed affirming the judgment of the lower appellate Court. Consequently, connected C.M.P. is also dismissed. No costs.