JUDGMENT : This appeal and cross objection are preferred by the plaintiffs, and defendants 2 and 3 respectively. The suit is one for recovery of possession on the strength of title. The suit was dismissed by the trial court against which the plaintiffs are in appeal. The cross objection relates to the finding on an issue against defendants 2 and 3. 2. The basic facts are not in dispute. The plaint schedule property has an extent of 1.68 hectares. The property was held under Kanam right by one Pallath Kanna Tharakan. One Pallakkal family took the property on lease under the said Thakaran. For arrears of rent, os 167/1950 of the Munsiff's court, Perinthalmanna was filed and in execution of the decree the leasehold right was sold and was purchased by one Mammadkutty. As per sale Deed No. 86/1966, Mammadkutty sold the property to one Achutha Tharakan. The said Achutha Tharakan gave oral lease to one Amu Animal. while so, as per Ext.A1 sale Deed of the year 1966, one Raman alias Appu Tharakan who is the husband of the first plaintiff and father of plaintiffs 2 and 3 purchased the rights of Achutha Tharakan viz. the lessor's right. The lessee Ammu Ammal sold her rights to the second defendant and one Muhammad under Ext.B1 Assignment Deed. The rights of Muhammad was purchased by the third defendant under Ext.62 Assignment Deed. Thus the lessee's right became vested with defendants 2 and 3. On the death of Raman alias Appu Tharakan, the legal heirs viz. the plaintiffs have instituted the suit for recovery of possession on the strength of title. 3. Defendants 2 and 3 are the contesting defendants. The other defendants remained ex parte. Though defendants 2 and 3 admit the derivation of title of either parties, they set up better title in themselves on the basis of Ext.B3 Purchase certificate dated 14.10.1982 obtained in the name of the second defendant. Thus, they challenge the title of the plaintiffs and their right to recover possession. Yet another defence set up is a plea of adverse possession and limitation. 4. The trial court found the title of the plaintiffs. However, the plea of adverse possession and limitation was upheld. Accordingly, the suit was dismissed. Hence, the appeal by the plaintiffs. The cross objection filed by defendants 1 and 2 relates to the finding on the issue of title. 5. Heard Sri. 4. The trial court found the title of the plaintiffs. However, the plea of adverse possession and limitation was upheld. Accordingly, the suit was dismissed. Hence, the appeal by the plaintiffs. The cross objection filed by defendants 1 and 2 relates to the finding on the issue of title. 5. Heard Sri. T. Sethumadhavan, learned senior counsel for the appellants-plaintiffs and Sri. T. Krishnanunni, learned senior counsel for the respondents-defendants 2 and 3. 6. As noticed supra, the derivation of rights of either parties are not in dispute. The better title as against the plaintiffs is claimed by defendants 2 and 3 on the strength of Ext.B3 Purchase certificate dated 14.10.1982 obtained by them. As found by the trial court, no notice was issued to the land owner before issuance of the purchase certificate. So also the lease based on which defendants 2 and 3 obtained purchase certificate is in the year 1966; by virtue of section 74 of the Kerala Land Reforms Act, 1963, there is a prohibition on creation of tenancy. Hence it needs no elaboration to hold that Ext.B3 purchase certificate obtained by defendants 2 and 3 is of no avail. The title of the plaintiffs is not under challenge on any other grounds. The finding of the trial court regarding the title of the plaintiffs is only liable to be affirmed and I do so. 7. The trial court has dismissed the suit upholding the plea of adverse possession. The trial court has upheld the plea solely on the finding that defendants 2 and 3 are in continuous possession from the year 1970 onwards. The finding of the trial court is ex facie unsustainable in law. Having claimed their rights as lessee, the plea of adverse possession is obviously untenable. The lack of hostile animus in possessing the property and acknowledgment of the lessor's title are intrinsic in a claim of possession as a lessee. Animus Possedendi to hold adversely against the owner, is a necessary ingredient of adverse possession. Without hostile animus there is no question of prescribing title by adverse possession. The finding of the trial court upholding the plea of adverse possession is unsustainable and is set aside. 8. The learned senior counsel appearing for defendants 2 and 3 attempts to support the decree on yet another ground. Without hostile animus there is no question of prescribing title by adverse possession. The finding of the trial court upholding the plea of adverse possession is unsustainable and is set aside. 8. The learned senior counsel appearing for defendants 2 and 3 attempts to support the decree on yet another ground. His contention is to the following effect:- Section 74 of the Kerala Land Reforms Act prohibits creation of tenancies after 01.04.1964. The contention of the plaintiff is that the lease granted after 01.04.1964 is invalid and therefore, the plaintiffs are entitled for recovery of possession. When in violation of statute a lease has been created, both the plaintiffs or their predecessor who granted the lease and the defendants who accepted the lease are equally at fault. When both the plaintiff and the defendant are at fault, the courts refuse to grant relief to the plaintiff and lets the estate lie where it is, viz with the defendant. Learned senior counsel relies upon a judgment of this court in Kotta Mohammed and Others v. Rukkiya, (1994) 2 KLT 722 to buttress his contention. Both the plaintiffs and defendants being parties to an illegal contract of lease, the plaintiffs are not entitled for the relief of recovery, is the submission. 9. The contention urged by the learned senior counsel is founded on two latin maxims "ex turpi causa non oritor actio" and "in pari delicto potior est conditio defendentis"; the court will not lend its hands to an illegal transaction, and when both the parties are at fault the court will let the estate remain where it lies. 10. I am unable to accept the contention. The suit for recovery of possession is laid on the strength of the plaintiffs' title. The suit is not based on the contract of lease, either for performance of the contract or for restoration of an advantage on the failure of the contract. Though the plaint refers to the possession of the defendants under the lease, it is only to explain the nature of possession. The suit is not based on any rights created under the contract, but on the title of the plaintiffs. In Kota Mohammed and Others v. Rukkiya (supra), this Court has held that in such cases, the suit is maintainable. The suit is not based on any rights created under the contract, but on the title of the plaintiffs. In Kota Mohammed and Others v. Rukkiya (supra), this Court has held that in such cases, the suit is maintainable. This Court observed thus:- “Viewed in this light though the plaintiff is a party to an illegal transaction in this case she is not precluded from seeking recovery of the property since she is able to assert a proprietary title to the property and need not rely on the illegal transaction as a part of her cause of action.” In that case also a lease was created in the year 1969 in violation of section 74 of the Kerala Land Reforms Act. The suit was filed for recovery of possession on the strength of title. This Court held thus:- “if the plaintiff had sued for recovery merely on the basis of the letting. a transaction hit by Section 74 of the Kerala Land Reforms Act. the Court would not have assisted her in obtaining any relief. But the plaintiff in the present case has sued on the strength of her title. In founding the cause of action on title the plaintiff is not relying on any illegal act or any transaction prohibited by law. The property belongs to the plaintiff and the possession of the same has found its way to the defendant and the illegal transaction is not part of the cause of action of the plaintiff even though it could be said that the plaintiff lost possession on the basis of the illegal transaction.” As noticed in the said judgment, in a suit for recovery of possession on the strength of title, the plaintiff only need to prove his title and it is for the defendant to rely on the illegal transaction. I am in perfect agreement with the view expressed in Kotta Mohammed and Others v. Rukkiya (supra) to hold that in a suit for recovery of possession on the strength of title and not on the illegal contract, the defence plea rested on the above maxims would not aid to defeat the plaint claim. The mere fact that the plaint refers to the lease created in violation of section 74, would not rest the case of the plaintiff on the contract. The mere fact that the plaint refers to the lease created in violation of section 74, would not rest the case of the plaintiff on the contract. A reading of the plaint as a whole, admits of no doubt that the suit is laid on the plaintiffs' title. The plaintiffs are entitled for a decree as sought for. In the result, this appeal is allowed. The plaintiffs are granted a decree for recovery of possession of the plaint schedule property on the strength of title. The cross objection stands dismissed. No costs.