JUDGMENT : Prayer in A.S.No.186 of 2019: First Appeal is filed under Section 96 of the Code of Civil Procedure read with Order XLI Rules 1 & 2 of C.P.C., 1908, against the judgment and decree dated 20.08.2018 made in O.S.No.142 of 2015 on the file of the III Additional District Judge, Salem. A.S.No.188 of 2019: First Appeal is filed under Section 96 of the Code of Civil Procedure read with Order XLI Rules 1 & 2 of C.P.C., 1908, against the judgment and decree dated 20.08.2018 made in O.S.No.63 of 2016 on the file of the III Additional District Judge, Salem. 1. The subject matter of these two Appeals is the land under 4 different survey numbers to a total extent of 1 acre 25 cents at Omalur Taluk, Amani Periyeripatti Village. This property originally belongs to one Ontha Gounder and his wife Sevakkal. They both died intestate leaving behind their only son Palaniappan. The said Palaniappan had two sons and two daughters by name Palanimuthu, Periyapaiyan, Nallammal and Chinnathangam. 2. As per the plaint in O.S.No.63 of 2016, (originally filed before District Munsif Court, Omalur as O.S.No.6 of 2010, renumbered after transfer to the III Additional District Court, Salem) the said property is an ancestral property. Ontha Gounder, his wife Sevakkal and his son Palaniappan were enjoying the property till their lifetime. Thereafter, it devolved upon the two sons of Palaniappan namely Palanimuthu (first plaintiff) and Periyapaiyan. They both were in possession and enjoyment of the property. After the demise of Periyapaiyan, his three sons namely Selvam, Anbarasu and Vekatachalam (plaintiffs 2 to 4) inherited his share and enjoying the property jointly along with Palanimuthu. Thus, the plaintiffs are in absolute possession and enjoyment of the suit property and none else have right over it. 3. In respect of the suit property, on 14.06.1978, Palanimuthu, the first plaintiff and Periyapaiyan father of plaintiffs 2 to 4, entered into a sale agreement with one Onthappa Goundar for consideration of Rs.5,500/- and received advance of Rs.2,000/-. The sale agreement was also registered. Onthappa Goundar was not able to pay the balance sale consideration and not ready and willing to perform the contract. He wanted the refund of advance money or to permit him to cultivate the land for 3 years period. The sale agreement was also registered. Onthappa Goundar was not able to pay the balance sale consideration and not ready and willing to perform the contract. He wanted the refund of advance money or to permit him to cultivate the land for 3 years period. Palanimuthu and Periyapaiyan permitted Onthappa Goundar to cultivate the land for a period of 3 years and same got renewed time to time since the first plaintiff and his brother Periyapaiyan were living away from Salem and not able to bestow their attention on the land. After the death of Periyapaiyan, his sons, who are the plaintiffs 2 to 4 became the joint owners of the property. On the demise of Onthappa Goundar, defendants 1 to 3, who are the sons and grandson of Onthappa Goundar were permitted to enjoy the suit properties on permissive basis. When the plaintiffs decided to dispose the property, they contacted the defendants 1 to 3 to vacate and handover the possession, they denied the plaintiff’s title and refuse to vacate. The notice dated 12.09.2008 to vacate the suit land returned unserved since the defendants 1 to 3 refused to receive it. Later, the plaintiffs came to know that, based on patta obtained by fraud, three documents were executed and registered in respect of the suit properties to defraud the plaintiffs. They are:- (i). 19/02/2003: Onthappa Goundar during his lifetime along with his sons defendants 1 to 3 had executed a sale deed in respect of 4th defendant to an extent of 39½ cents and got the sale deed registered. (ii). 05/11/2007: First defendant had executed a registered settlement deed in favour of his son the 4th defendant in respect of land extending 0.27 ¼ cents. (iii). 25/08/2008: A partition deed between defendants 1 to 3 registered in respect of some of the suit properties. 4. It was averred in the plaint that behind the back of the plaintiffs, who are the actual title holders and owners of the property and without any legal right, the above mentioned documents were executed and registered by the permissive occupants. Hence, suit to declare the plaintiffs the absolute owner of the suit property, to declare the documents dated 19.02.2003, 25.08.2008 and 05.11.2007 as null and void and for recovery of possession filed. Hence, suit to declare the plaintiffs the absolute owner of the suit property, to declare the documents dated 19.02.2003, 25.08.2008 and 05.11.2007 as null and void and for recovery of possession filed. Also relief of permanent injunction prayed to restrain the defendants from alienating the property, alleging that the 4th defendant based on the settlement deed dated 05.11.2007 trying to alienate the property to third party and had filed O.S.No.64 of 2009 for permanent injunction against the 4th plaintiff and two others. 5. Pending the above suit filed by the son and grandsons of Palaniappan, the daughters of Palaniappan claiming share in the suit property and to declare the sale deed dated 19.02.2003, settlement deed dated 05.11.2007 and the partition deed dated 25.08.2008 as null and void filed O.S.No.142 of 2015. In the said suit, the plaintiffs and the defendants in the previous suit O.S.No.63 of 2010 were show as defendants 1 to 9. 6. As per the plaint, in O.S.No.142 of 2015 the subsequent suit filed by the daughters of Ontha Gounder it is averred that, when the plaintiffs approached the defendants 1 to 4 i.e., their younger brother and the sons of deceased elder brother on 10.03.2014 and demanded share in the suit properties, they were denied share. The Panchayat convened with the help of neighbours and relatives ended in vain. On 20.03.2014 when they approached the Registering Authorities at Omalur, they came to know about the registered sale agreement entered between their brothers and one Onthappa Goundar on 14.06.1978, the sale of portion of property (described in ‘B’ schedule) under the document No.324 of 2003 dated 19.02.2003 by Onthappa Goundar and his sons to Selliammal, the 9th defendant, the gift deed dated 05.11.2007 by 5th defendant Nallappa Gounder in favour of his son Vadivel, the 8th defendant in respect of ‘C’ schedule property and a partition deed 25.08.2008, in respect of properties described in ‘D’ schedule. These documents were created to deceive the plaintiffs from getting their lawful share in the property of their father. Onthappa Goundar had changed the patta for the suit properties in his name fraudulently without any valid documents or title. Proclaiming as absolute owners of the suit properties, the defendants are trying to alienate the properties to third parties. These documents were created to deceive the plaintiffs from getting their lawful share in the property of their father. Onthappa Goundar had changed the patta for the suit properties in his name fraudulently without any valid documents or title. Proclaiming as absolute owners of the suit properties, the defendants are trying to alienate the properties to third parties. Hence, relief of permanent injunction and recovery of possession, partition by metes and bounds into 4 equal shares and allot one share each to the plaintiffs 1 and 2 sought. 7. The first defendant in O.S.63 of 2016, filed written statement, wherein the relationship of parties are admitted. According to this defendant, his father Onthappa Goundar S/o.Nallappa Goundar entered into a sale agreement with the first plaintiff and the father of plaintiffs 2 to 4 on 14.06.1978 and paid the part sale consideration of Rs.2,000/- on the same day. As per the agreement, out of balance the balance sale consideration Rs.2,000/- to be paid on 16.09.1978 and Rs.1,500/- to be paid on 14.03.1979. The possession of the suit property was handed over to the Onthappa Goundar on the date of agreement. After receiving the entire sale consideration, the vendors who where living at Salem did not come forward to register the sale deed citing their work burden. Onthappa Goundar was in possession and enjoyment of the suit properties till his lifetime. Thereafter, as his legal heirs, the defendants are in continuous possession and enjoyment of the suit properties, since for more than 38 years the defendants are in continuous uninterrupted possession of the suit properties. Under the UDR scheme patta for the properties issued in favour of the first defendant 31 years ago. The Patta, Chitta and Adangal stands in the name of Onthappa Goundar. Kist for the suit land paid in his name. Hence, the suit filed after 38 years from the date, the defendants put in possession is barred by limitation. Further, the land in S.No.130/7 (0.10 cents) is the ancestral property of the defendants. In the said property the plaintiffs have no right. Rest of the suit properties, on payment of entire sale consideration, Onthappa Goundar became the absolute owner of the property and perfected title by long and uninterrupted possession. He had every right to dispose the property. Therefore, the partition deed, settlement deed and sale deed are valid. 8. In the said property the plaintiffs have no right. Rest of the suit properties, on payment of entire sale consideration, Onthappa Goundar became the absolute owner of the property and perfected title by long and uninterrupted possession. He had every right to dispose the property. Therefore, the partition deed, settlement deed and sale deed are valid. 8. In the partition suit O.S.142/2015, reiterating the same stand taken in O.S.63/2016, the Nallappa gounder the 5th defendant in the written statement had averred that, the sons of late Palaniappan had not whispered about the right of their sisters in the suit property either while executing sale deed in the year 1978 or in their suit O.S.No.63 of 2016. The suit is filed at the instigation of the plaintiffs in O.S.No.63 of 2016, to defeat the lawful right of the defendants 4 to 9. The plaintiffs have no right to claim partition, even if they had any right in the property, same got extinguished after long, continuous and uninterrupted possession and enjoyment of the property by the defendants 5 to 9. 9. Based on the pleadings, the Court below framed the following issues:- O.S. 63/2010:- (i). Whether the plaintiffs are entitled for the relief of declaration as prayed for? (ii). Whether the plaintiffs are entitled for the relief of delivery of possession as prayed for? (iii). Whether the plaintiffs are entitled for the relief of declaring the deeds dated 19.02.2003, 25.08.2008, 05.11.2007 as null & void? (iv). Whether the plaintiffs are entitled for the relief of permanent injunction as prayed for? (v). Whether the defendants are in possession of the suit property past 38 years in true? (vi). Whether the suit is barred by limitation? (vii). To what other relief? O.S. 142/2015:- (i). Whether the plaintiffs are entitled for partition as prayed for? (ii). Whether the plaintiffs are entitled for the relief of declaration as the sale deed dated 19.02.2003, Document No.324 of 2003 is null and void? (iii). Whether the plaintiffs are entitled for the relief of declaration as the settlement deed dated 05.11.2007 is null and void? (iv). Whether the plaintiffs are entitled for the relief of declaration of partition deed dated 25.08.2008 as null and void? (v). Whether the plaintiffs are entitled for delivery of possession as prayed for? (vi). Whether the plaintiffs are entitled for permanent injunction as prayed for? (vii). Whether the suit is barred by limitation? (viii). (iv). Whether the plaintiffs are entitled for the relief of declaration of partition deed dated 25.08.2008 as null and void? (v). Whether the plaintiffs are entitled for delivery of possession as prayed for? (vi). Whether the plaintiffs are entitled for permanent injunction as prayed for? (vii). Whether the suit is barred by limitation? (viii). Whether the defendants are as absolute owners and possession of the suit properties? (ix). To what other relief? 10. On petition, the Trial of the both suits held jointly. The evidence recorded in O.S.No.63 of 2016 treated as evidence for O.S.No.142/2015. Five witnesses for the plaintiffs and four witnesses for the defendants examined. Ex.A-1 to Ex.A-9 were marked as plaintiffs side documents. Ex.B-1 to Ex.B-14 were marked as defendants side documents. The revenue records were marked as Ex.X-1 to Ex.X -37. 11. The Trial Court held that the appellants herein had failed to prove the payment of balance sale consideration. The possession of suit property given to Onthappa Goundar initially for three years from 1978 to 1981 for cultivation and thereafter, permitted to continue. Thus, his status is permissive occupant. The said possession is not adverse to the true owner. Hence, the plea of the defendants that they have perfected the title by adverse possession is baseless. The patta is not proof of title. The documents dated 19.02.2003 by Onthappa Goundar and his sons to Selliammal the 9th defendant (Ex.B-12), the gift deed dated 05.11.2007 by 5th defendant Nallappa Gounder in favour of his son Vadivel the 8th defendant in respect of ‘C’ schedule property (Ex.B-13) and a partition deed 25.08.2008, in respect of properties described in ‘D’ schedule (Ex.B-14) held non est, null and void. 12. The Trial Court consequently, declared the title in favour of the plaintiffs in both the suits who are the sons and daughters of Palaniappan. Preliminary decree passed in the partition suit declaring 1/4th share to each. Declared the three documents viz., Ex.B-12 to Ex.B-14 as null and void and recovery of possession was granted to the plaintiffs in O.S.No.63 of 2016. The defendants were restrained by decree of permanent injunction from creating encumbrance in any manner or from alienating the suit property till handing over the property. 13. The said judgment and decree is assailed on the ground that the Trial Court failed to consider the appellants continuous and peaceful possession for more than 38 years. The defendants were restrained by decree of permanent injunction from creating encumbrance in any manner or from alienating the suit property till handing over the property. 13. The said judgment and decree is assailed on the ground that the Trial Court failed to consider the appellants continuous and peaceful possession for more than 38 years. The uninterrupted possession ensures them the right of adverse possession. The revenue records like ‘A’ register, Patta, Chitta, Adangal and Kist receipts which stands in the name of Onthappa Goundar overlooked by the Trial Court. The plaintiffs having slept over their right in the property for more than 12 years. The suit property was given possession to Onthappa Goundar after the sale agreement dated 14.06.1978. The Trial Court failed to appreciate, the silence of the plaintiffs for more than 38 years allowing the appellants to enjoy the property absolutely with their knowledge and adverse to their interest squarely attracts Article 64 of the Limitation Act. Ex.B-12 to Ex.B-14 are assailed after 12 years of its execution. The relief to declare them as null and void is hopelessly barred by limitation. However, the Trial Court, without assigning proper reason has held those deeds as null and void. 14. The Learned Counsel for the appellant to buttress his argument rely the following judgment: (i). D.V.Jaganathan and others vs P.R.Srinivasan and others reported in 1999 (III) CTC 263 . (ii). M.Durai vs. Madhu and others reported in 2007 (III) CTC 691 . (iii). Annakili vs. A.Vedanayagam and others reported in 2008 (I) CTC 329 . 15. The Learned Counsel for the respondents submitted, it is an undisputed fact that the original title holder of the property was Ontha Gounder and his wife Sevakkal. On his death, the property devolved on his only son Palaniappan. He had two sons and two daughters. The said Palaniappan died intestate. Leaving behind him his sons and daughter. 16. The appellants admittedly came into possession only after Ex.A-3 dated 14.06.1978 on payment of part sale consideration. Though, it is claimed that the balance sale consideration paid to the first respondent Palanimuthu and his deceased brother Periyapaiyan and thereby, Onthappa Goundar became the absolute owner of the property, the receipts for payment of balance sale consideration not produced and therefore, the Trial Court has rightly held that, title has not passed to Onthappa Goundar. Though, it is claimed that the balance sale consideration paid to the first respondent Palanimuthu and his deceased brother Periyapaiyan and thereby, Onthappa Goundar became the absolute owner of the property, the receipts for payment of balance sale consideration not produced and therefore, the Trial Court has rightly held that, title has not passed to Onthappa Goundar. The respondents being landlord in absentee, the patta has been fraudulently transferred in the name of Onthappa Goundar. P.W.5, the V.A.O. of the Village had deposed that Ex.B-2 patta was issued to in the name of Onthappa Goundar based on the possession and not based on title document. D.W-1 Vadivel S/o.Nallappa Gounder, in his cross examination, admits that Ex.B-2 patta was issued in the year 2002. The change of patta after the UDR scheme, not made after notice to the existing Pattadar. The illegality in issuance of patta Ex.B-2 in the name of Ontha Gounder S/o.Nallagounder could be seen by including the property in S.No.130/7 which is not even part of the sale agreement Ex.B-1. The appellants came into possession of the suit properties on permission to cultivate for three years. Later, the same was extended, they never been in possession hostile to the title holder. Hence, the Trial Court is correct in holding them as permissive occupant and not entitled to claim perfection of title by adverse possession. 17. Point of determination: Whether the appellants by their continuous possession of the suit property had perfected title by adverse possession and whether the deeds marked as Ex.B-12 to Ex.B-14 is valid in the eye of law? 18. As per the evidence, the suit property inherited by Palaniappan from his parent. After the death of Palaniappan, his two sons namely Palanimuthu (P.W-1) and Periyapaiyan (father of P.W-2) entered into sale agreement on 14.06.1978 with one Onthappa Goundar. The Appellants claim that possession given on the date of agreement after receiving part payment of Rs.2,000/- and later, the balance sale consideration of Rs.3,500/- paid in two instalment. Ex.A-1 sale agreement does not say about delivery of possession to Onthappa Goundar as part performance. However, the respondents admit in their written statement as well through witnesses that possession given to Onthappa Goundar on his request to cultivate the land for three years i.e., from 1978 to 1981 instead of refunding the advance money paid under sale agreement Ex.A-1. Thereafter, he was permitted to continue in possession. However, the respondents admit in their written statement as well through witnesses that possession given to Onthappa Goundar on his request to cultivate the land for three years i.e., from 1978 to 1981 instead of refunding the advance money paid under sale agreement Ex.A-1. Thereafter, he was permitted to continue in possession. The Trial Court has taken note of the admission of the first defendant (Nallappa Gounder) in his written statement filed in O.S.No.63 of 2016, wherein, he admits that after 3 years, they were permitted to continue the cultivation of the suit land periodically. 19. Regarding this admission, the Learned Counsel for the Appellant state that the said admission found in the written statement of the first defendant is a typographical error. The said error reconciled through the oral evidence of D.W.1 Vadivel (4th defendant) in the cross examination. Reading the said portion of the D.W-1, this Court finds that, when the attention of the witness drawn to the previous statement of the first defendant adopted by the 4th defendant/DW-1, he has denied that the previous statement is wrong. It is contradiction of the written admission through oral evidence. The defendants either should have filed petition to amend the alleged error or in the Chief examination, should have explained and reconciled the error satisfactorily. Oral evidence contrary to the content of document is permissible only if it satisfies the conditions enumerated under Chapter-VI of the Indian Evidence Act. The Appellant had failed to satisfactorily explain to the Court why the admission in the written statement should not be accepted under Section 18 of the Evidence Act. 20. The next limb of the appellants submission is, the fact of the continuous possession of the suit property by the appellants since 1978 is admitted by the plaintiffs. Knowingly appellants are in possession of the property for more than 38 years. Recognising their long possession patta granted to them. Based on the patta, deeds Ex.B-12 to Ex.B-14 executed. Third parties rights have come into force. The plaintiffs despite knowing these facts never challenged these deeds for more than 12 years. Therefore, the appellants have perfected the title by adverse possession, as per Article 64 of the Limitation Act. 21. The suit in O.S.No.63 of 2016 filed for declaration of title and for recovery of possession. Third parties rights have come into force. The plaintiffs despite knowing these facts never challenged these deeds for more than 12 years. Therefore, the appellants have perfected the title by adverse possession, as per Article 64 of the Limitation Act. 21. The suit in O.S.No.63 of 2016 filed for declaration of title and for recovery of possession. Article 64 of the Limitation Act prescribes Limitation for the suit filed based on previous possession and not on title. Whereas, in the present case, suit is filed based on title and not on previous possession. Therefore, for the purpose of reckoning limitation in this case, Article 65 alone is applicable. For better clarity, the two articles are extracted below:- Part-V Suits relating to Immovable Property. Description of Suit Period of Limitation Time from which period beings to run 64. For possession of immovable property based on previous possession and not on title, when the plaintiff while in possession of the property has been dispossessed. Twelve years The date of dispossession. 65. For possession of immovable property or any interest therein based on title. Twelve years When the possession of the defendant becomes adverse to the plaintiff. 22. The suit for possession of immovable property based on title should be filed within 12 years, when the possession of the defendants become adverse to the plaintiff. The next question, therefore, to be answered is when the possession of the defendants become adverse to the plaintiff. To answer this question, the commencement of possession and manner the possession came to the defendants are relevant. For the said purpose, the ‘animus to possess’ and such animus hostile to the true owner has to be proved by the defendant, who resort protection from eviction claiming ‘adverse possession’. 23. The parties agreed to the fact that Ontha Goundar came in possession of the suit property in the year 1978 after execution of Ex.A.1. It is also relevant to note that only sons of Palaniappan has executed the sale agreement in favour of Onthappa Goundar. His two daughters are not privy to the sale transaction, though Palaniappan died interstate leaving behind four issues. Whether Onthappa Goundar took possession as part performance of the contract or in lieu of advance money paid, either way his entry into the property was with permission and consent. His two daughters are not privy to the sale transaction, though Palaniappan died interstate leaving behind four issues. Whether Onthappa Goundar took possession as part performance of the contract or in lieu of advance money paid, either way his entry into the property was with permission and consent. A person who has entered into a property either as a prospective buyer or as a cultivating tenant, his continuation in possession will not be adverse to the title holder. Unless, he has expressed his animus on the property hostile to the interest of the owners. In the instant case, there is no evidence to show that the possession of the appellant was hostile to the knowledge of the true owner. 24. The Learned Counsel for the appellant heavily rely upon the revenue records Ex.B-2, Ex.B-5, Ex.B-10 and other revenue records can never confer title. Courts in the following judgments had clearly held, revenue records are document of title. 25. The Hon’ble Supreme Court in Union of India and others vs. Vasavi Cooperative Housing Society Limited and others reported in (2014) 2 SCC 269 , has held that the revenue records do not confer title. In Corporation of the City of Bangalore vs. M.Papaiah reported in [ (1989) 3 SCC 612 ] this Court held that:- “5. … It is firmly established that the revenue records are not documents of title, and the question of interpretation of a document not being a document of title is not a question of law.” In Guru Amarjit Singh vs. Rattan Chand reported in [ (1993) 4 SCC 349 ] this Court has held that:- “2. … that entries in the Jamabandi are not proof of title.” In State of H.P. vs. Keshav Ram reported in [ (1996) 11 SCC 257 ] this Court held that:- “5. … an entry in the revenue papers by no stretch of imagination can form the basis for declaration of title in favour of the plaintiffs.” 26. In the written statement, the appellants have taken two different stands, (i).In possession as purchaser of the property after payment of due consideration. (ii).Continuous uninterpreted possession for more than 28 years with the knowledge of title holder. Whereas, the case of the plaintiffs is that, the defendants father was permitted to cultivate the land as permissive occupant. In the written statement, the appellants have taken two different stands, (i).In possession as purchaser of the property after payment of due consideration. (ii).Continuous uninterpreted possession for more than 28 years with the knowledge of title holder. Whereas, the case of the plaintiffs is that, the defendants father was permitted to cultivate the land as permissive occupant. In this connection, the Learned Counsel for the appellants has made an additional plea that, if the appellants are tenant under the plaintiffs, then before seeking eviction, they should have caused statutory notice to quit. In the absence of such notice, the plaintiffs are not entitled for recovery of possession. 27. This plea is only an afterthought raised at the appellate stage. The statutory notice under Section 106 of Transfer of Property Act will arise only if there is landlord tenant relationship. In this case, the plea of the plaintiffs is that, they have permitted the appellants to occupy the land since they were landlord in absentee. No specific rent alleged to have collected from them. 28. This plea raised in the appellate stage has no legs to stand. The jural relationship between the plaintiffs and the defendants were the owner and permissive occupant. No evidence to show that the appellants were in possession for a rent. In such circumstances, there is no necessity for issuance of termination notice more particularly, when the case of the appellants is that, they purchased and paid entire sale consideration and setting up title for themselves through the patta issued in the name of Onthappa Goundar. 29. It is well settled principle that, however, long continuous possession be with the defendants, such possession cannot be termed as adverse possession so as to prefect the title within the meaning of Article 65 Limitation Act. The requirement is to prove the animus to hold the property hostile to true owner. The said hostility should be open, uninterpreted and continuous. The appellants who have first based their title on the sale agreement Ex.A.1 later had shifted their status as a permissive occupant. A permissive occupant can never take a stand of adverse possession, since there is no open hostility. Such hostility should be not only open but should have commenced from the inception. The appellants who have first based their title on the sale agreement Ex.A.1 later had shifted their status as a permissive occupant. A permissive occupant can never take a stand of adverse possession, since there is no open hostility. Such hostility should be not only open but should have commenced from the inception. The change of patta based on the continuous possession as spoken by V.A.O, P.W.5 will not confer title more particularly, when phonetically similar name of (Ontha Gounder and Onthappa Goundar), the original title holder taken advantage by the appellants to change the patta in their favour without notice to the true owner. By fraud and deceit, patta has been obtained and subsequent documents were created. Such Act of fraud vitiates all solemn act. In this case also, the transfer of patta and subsequent deeds Ex.A.12 to Ex.A14 are outcome of fraudulent act committed behind the plaintiff. None of the evidence indicates that open hostility to the true owner been demonstrated by the appellants. 30. Though, there are number of judgments to buttress the above conclusion, it is suffice to quote the above judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Karnataka Board of Wakf vs. Government of India reported in (2004) 10 SCC 779 , which held as below:- “11. Physical fact of exclusive possession and the animus possidendi to hold as owner in exclusion to hold as owner in exclusion to the actual owner are the most important factors that are to be accounted in cases of this nature. Plea of adverse possession is not a pure question of law but a blended one of fact and law. Therefore, a person who claims adverse possession should show: (a) on what date he came into possession, (b). what was the nature of his possession, (c) whether the factum of possession was known to the other party, (d) how long his possession has continued, and (e) his possession was open and undisturbed.” 31. In Annakili vs. A. Vedanayagam reported in (2007) 14 SCC 308 , this Court emphasized that mere possession of land would not ripen into a possessory tile. The possessor must have animus possidendi and hold the land adverse to the tile of the true owner. Moreover, he must continue in that capacity for the period prescribed under the Limitation Act. 32. For the above said reasons, these Appeal Suits are dismissed. The possessor must have animus possidendi and hold the land adverse to the tile of the true owner. Moreover, he must continue in that capacity for the period prescribed under the Limitation Act. 32. For the above said reasons, these Appeal Suits are dismissed. Consequently, connected Miscellaneous Petitions are closed. No costs.