JUDGEMENT :- The appellant herein is the plaintiff. He filed a suit in O. S. No. 71 of 1999 before the Additional District Munsif, Cuddalore for the relief of declaration and recovery of possession of the suit property. The suit property is situated at Kondur Village, Cuddalore registered district. The survey number is 77. The suit land measuring to the extent of 0. 26½ cents out of 0.53 cents. The said suit was decreed in favour of the plaintiff and thereafter, the defendants preferred an appeal before the learned Subordinate Judge, Cuddalore and the same was allowed. As against the said order, the present second appeal has been filed by the plaintiff. 2. The case of the appellant/plaintiff is as follows : He purchased the suit property on 6-6-1962 for a valid consideration from one Iyyakannu Pillai. At that time under him one Venkatakrishna Reddiar of Kondur was cultivating the said land as a lessee. Thereafter, the appellant/plaintiff came into possession and has been cultivating the land. Since the appellant/plaintiff filed the original document in the earlier proceedings, he could not file the original document. Even though the appellant/plaintiff purchased the said piece of land for doing cultivation at Kondur Village, he left the village subsequently, and settled at Kayathur village, Villupuram Taluk. When his sister-in-law one Kannammal asked him to reside at the suit premises by putting a hut therein he allowed her to occupy there. She has remained in the said land for 10 years and died. After her death the first defendant son was living there. In spite of the appellant/plaintiff insisting him to vacate from the premises he refused to do the same. But the first defendant without any basis and right allowed the second defendant to occupy a certain portion of the suit property and allowed him to put up a thatched shed therein. Since the first defendant refused to vacate from the premises in spite of several requests made by the appellant/plaintiff, the appellant/plaintiff filed a suit for the relief of declaration and permanent injunction against the respondents. 3. The first defendant did not dispute the purchase of the plaintiff from one Iyyakannu Pillai under a registered sale deed on 6-6-1992. After the purchase of the said property, since the plaintiff wanted to settle at Kayathur Village, he sold the property in favour of the first defendant during the year 1963 for Rs.1500/-. 4. 3. The first defendant did not dispute the purchase of the plaintiff from one Iyyakannu Pillai under a registered sale deed on 6-6-1992. After the purchase of the said property, since the plaintiff wanted to settle at Kayathur Village, he sold the property in favour of the first defendant during the year 1963 for Rs.1500/-. 4. Though the sale deed was reduced into writing, the same was not registered for want of funds. As soon as the occupation of the first defendant into the said property he put up a hut therein and residing with his family members. Thereafter, he paid the house tax to the concerned authorities and he got electricity connection also in his name under one light service scheme. The appellant/plaintiff has not raised any objection with regard to some developments made by the first defendant in the suit property. He kept silence. Thereafter, he planted tamarind trees, mango trees, etc. in the suit land. The first defendant did not admit the plaintiff's title at any time after 1963. He perfected his title by adverse possession. The appellant/plaintiff never allowed the mother of Kannammal to occupy the certain portion of the suit land under the name and style of permissive occupant. None of the circumstances has arisen for doing so. While so, the first defendant's hut damaged due to fire accident. As a result of that all the documents and other materials kept inside the house were totally destroyed. Knowing about this fact the appellant/plaintiff has come forward without any basis and right filed the suit for the declaration and injunction. The first defendant has got every right to remain there as a owner. Therefore, he allowed the second defendant to put up a shed therein and allowed him to run a workshop. Therefore, the suit is liable to be dismissed. 5. The second appeal was admitted on the following substantial question of law. "Whether the mere rent free possession without any accompanying hostile act against the real owner will confer title by adverse possession?" 6. Heard both sides. 7. A careful reading of the judgement delivered by the learned Subordinate Judge would reveal that believing the case stated by the respondents/defendants the learned Subordinate Judge reversed the judgement and decree of the trial Court. 8. Heard both sides. 7. A careful reading of the judgement delivered by the learned Subordinate Judge would reveal that believing the case stated by the respondents/defendants the learned Subordinate Judge reversed the judgement and decree of the trial Court. 8. The learned counsel appearing for the appellant would vehemently contend that since the mother of the first defendant happens to be the sister-in-law of the plaintiff, he permitted her to put up a thatched hut in a portion of the suit property. After her death the first defendant continued there without any permission from the appellant. When the appellant asked the first defendant to vacate and deliver the vacant possession to the plaintiff, the first defendant instead of vacating from the premises, he claims ownership upon the suit property by way of creating a story that he purchased the said property from the appellant during the year 1963 for a consideration of Rs. 1500/ In spite of repeated requests made by the appellant to vacate from the premises, the first respondent instead of vacating from the premises rather put up the second defendant as tenant in a portion of the suit property and allowed him to run a workshop there. 9. It is pointed out that without any right or claim over the suit property, he once again, created a new story that the unregistered sale deed and other connected records pertaining to the suit land were destroyed in a fire accident. Therefore, he was not able to produce the same. 10. Further, the learned counsel would point out that for claiming the right over the suit property, the ownership right created by the first defendant by way of telling a story that the unregistered document which was kept inside the hut become destroyed is nothing but a false story created by the first defendant for the purpose of squatting on the property without any basis or right. 11. In such circumstances, it is pointed out that the decision arrived at by the learned District Munsif believing the case put up by the respondents/defendants is not at all sustainable under law. 12. 11. In such circumstances, it is pointed out that the decision arrived at by the learned District Munsif believing the case put up by the respondents/defendants is not at all sustainable under law. 12. The learned counsel appearing for the respondent/defendant would submit that even though the plaintiff has pleaded that he has given permission to the mother of the first defendant to occupy the premises as a permissive occupant, the plaintiff has not come forward to prove the said fact before the Court of law. 13. It is pointed out that he miserably failed to establish the principle of occupant possession. Further, it is pointed out that to strengthen that plea, the plaintiff has not adduced satisfactory evidence before the Court, he has not come forward to corroborate that fact by way of examining a witness on his side. 14. Further, the learned counsel would point out that the entire case stated by the plaintiff on the basis of permissive occupant was not established. 15. The case stated by the respondent/plaintiff on the basis of claiming adverse possession over the suit property is reliable one and the same is established by the defendants by way of adducing satisfactory evidence before the Court of law. 16. Moreover, it is pointed out that the said fact not only established by the respondent/defendant but also it is categorically admitted by the appellant/defendant with regard to the possession of appellant/plaintiff for over many years. 17. In this regard, the learned counsel appearing for the respondent/defendant relied on a following decision for consideration of this Court. 18. In Uttam Singh Dugal and Co. Ltd. v. Union Bank of India and others, AIR 2000 SC 2740 the Supreme Court held as follows: "In the objects and reasons set out while amending the said rule, it is stated that "where a claim is admitted, the Court has jurisdiction to enter a judgement for the plaintiff and to pass a decree on a admitted claim. The object of the Rules is to enable the party to obtain a speedy judgement at least to the extent of the relief to which according to the admission of the defendant, the plaintiff is entitled." We should not unduly narrow down the meaning of this rule as the object is to enable a party to obtain speedy judgement. The object of the Rules is to enable the party to obtain a speedy judgement at least to the extent of the relief to which according to the admission of the defendant, the plaintiff is entitled." We should not unduly narrow down the meaning of this rule as the object is to enable a party to obtain speedy judgement. Where other party has made a plain admission entitling the former to succeed, it should apply and also wherever there is a clear admission of facts in the face of which, it is impossible for the party making such admission to succeed." 18. It is relevant to refer to the following admission made by the appellant/plaintiff. (Vernacular matter omitted. Ed.) 19. Emphasising the above stated categorical admission of the appellant/plaintiff, it is pointed out that the adverse possession claimed by the respondents/plaintiffs over the suit property is proved and established. 20. In support of his contention, the learned counsel appearing for the respondent/defendant relied on a following decision. 21. In V. Muthiah Pillai (died) and others v. Vedambal and others, (1998 LW 606), this Court has held as follows : "The classical requirements of adverse possession are that the possession must be nec vi nec clam nec precario, that is to say, the possession required must be adequate in continuity, in publicity and in extent. It is sufficient that the possession be overt and without any attempt at concealment so that the person against whom time is running ought, if he exercises due vigilance, to be aware of what is happening". 22. As already discussed above, the categorical admission of the plaintiff with regard to the uninterrupted and long possession of the plaintiff over the suit property for over many years and in furtherance of the said possession and enjoyment, the defendant got electricity connection in his name and paid tax to the concerned authority. This fact has been clearly not only proved by the respondent/defendant but also accepted by the appellant/plaintiff. In such circumstances, the claim of adverse possession over the suit property by the respondent/defendant is clinchingly established. 23. Refuting the arguments advanced by the learned counsel appearing for the respondent/defendants, the learned counsel appearing for the appellant/plaintiff would submit that for claiming the right over the suit property, the appellant/plaintiff produced sufficient material evidence before the Court. 24. In such circumstances, the claim of adverse possession over the suit property by the respondent/defendant is clinchingly established. 23. Refuting the arguments advanced by the learned counsel appearing for the respondent/defendants, the learned counsel appearing for the appellant/plaintiff would submit that for claiming the right over the suit property, the appellant/plaintiff produced sufficient material evidence before the Court. 24. In this regard, it is pointed out that the appellant/plaintiff produced Exs. A1 to A8. 25. As already discussed above, Ex. A1 is the certified copy of the sale deed. Ex. A. 2 is the copy of Land Tax Register. Ex. A3 is the copy of Chitta. Ex. A4 is the copy of Adangal. Ex. A5 is the transfer of patta. Ex. A6 to A8 are kist receipts. 26. In this regard, the learned counsel appearing for the respondents/defendants would submit that as far as A6 to A8 are concerned, the appellant/plaintiff secured those documents from the revenue authorities. Therefore, much importance could not be given to those documents for deciding the right claimed by the appellant over the suit property. 27. A careful perusal of Exs. A.2, A3 and A4 would reveal that in all these documents father's name is different. 28. It is pointed out that the plaintiff's father is one Veerappan, whereas in all these documents, the name of father is mentioned as Subban. Even though in Ex. A. 3 the father's name was subsequently rectified as Veerappan as per RTR 964/91-92 dated 19-3-1992, however, in Ex. A. 5 the father's name is mentioned as Veerappan. If it is so, how this certificate was issued to the plaintiff by furnishing the correct name of the father. 29. With regard to the correction of father's name of the appellant/plaintiff in Ex. A.3 and with regard to different father's name referred in Ex. A2 and A4, no such evidence was adduced by the plaintiff and therefore, much important could not be given to those documents for deciding the case of the appellant/plaintiff. 30. As stated by the learned counsel appearing for the respondents/defendants, the documents relied on by the appellant/plaintiff under Ex. A. 2 and A8 are not supporting the case of the appellant/plaintiff. Hence whatever the references mentioned in those documents are not taken into consideration. 31. The substantial questions of law are answered against the appellant. 32. 30. As stated by the learned counsel appearing for the respondents/defendants, the documents relied on by the appellant/plaintiff under Ex. A. 2 and A8 are not supporting the case of the appellant/plaintiff. Hence whatever the references mentioned in those documents are not taken into consideration. 31. The substantial questions of law are answered against the appellant. 32. In the light of the above discussions, this Court does not find any valid reason for allowing the appeal in favour of the appellant. 33. As already discussed above, when the case stated by the respondents/defendants is a real one and their possession over the suit property was perfected by adverse possession, the case stated by the appellant/plaintiff has become unreliable. In such circumstances, the second appeal has no merit and the same is dismissed. No costs.