JUDGMENT : R. SAKTHIVEL, J. This Second Appeal is filed by the defendant in the Original Suit. Challenge is to the Judgment and Decree dated February 1, 2012 passed in A.S.No.26 of 2011 by the 'Subordinate Court, Harur' [henceforth 'First Appellate Court'] reversing the Judgment and Decree dated December 22, 2009 passed in O.S.No.516 of 2004 by the 'District Munsif Court, Harur' [henceforth 'Trial Court']. 2. For the sake of convenience, hereinafter, the parties will be referred to as per their array in the Original Suit. PLAINTIFFS' CASE 3. According to the plaintiffs, the first plaintiff's husband is Rathinam, and the plaintiffs 2 and 3 are their sons. The defendant is the first plaintiff’s brother. Suit Property was purchased by the first plaintiff's husband - Rathinam vide Sale Deed dated December 5, 1972 and he was in possession and enjoyment till his demise in 1993. Thereafter the plaintiffs are in its possession and enjoyment. The plaintiffs are residing in Pallipatty Village while the Suit Property is situate in Eachampadi Village which is 50 Kms away from the said Pallipatty Village. The defendant is residing in Eachampadi Village has been maintaining the Suit Property and paying kists on behalf of the plaintiffs. However, the defendant clandestinely mutated the revenue records in his name, filed a Suit in O.S.No.377 of 2004 for permanent injunction against the plaintiffs in respect of the Suit Property, and also attempted to trespass into the Suit property on September 29, 2004. The plaintiffs learnt about the mutation of revenue records only in the 1st week of July 2004. Hence the Suit for declaration and permanent injunction. DEFENDANT'S CASE 4. The defendant filed written statement wherein it is stated that though the Suit Property originally belonged to Rathinam, the defendant is in its actual, open, continuous and uninterrupted possession and enjoyment from 1973 i.e., for more than 30 years, and perfected title by adverse possession in 1985 itself. The plaintiffs were never in its possession and enjoyment. In fact, Rathinam himself had admitted the defendant’s adverse possession and handed over all the original documents. Thereafter, the defendant purchased the property on the western side of Suit Property and has been enjoying it along with Suit Property as one. The plaintiffs were never in its possession and enjoyment. In fact, Rathinam himself had admitted the defendant’s adverse possession and handed over all the original documents. Thereafter, the defendant purchased the property on the western side of Suit Property and has been enjoying it along with Suit Property as one. In June 2003, plaintiffs borrowed a sum of Rs.40,000/- as hand loan from the defendant and refused to repay the same, and there arose a dispute between the plaintiffs and the defendant. While so, the plaintiffs attempted to trespass into the Suit property on July 25, 2004. Hence, the defendant obtained interim injunction vide the Decree passed in O.S.No.377 of 2004. The Suit Property herein constitutes Suit 'A' Schedule property therein while the property purchased by the defendant vide Ex-A.1 constitutes Suit 'B' Schedule property therein. The daughters of said Rathinam, namely Muthumani and Karpagam, are necessary parties to the Suit, and are not impleaded. Hence, the Suit is bad for non joinder of necessary parties. Accordingly, he sought to dismiss the Suit. TRIAL COURT 5. The plaintiffs’ Suit in O.S.No.516 of 2004 was tried jointly by the Trial Court along with the said defendant’s Suit in O.S.No.377 of 2004. The evidence were recorded in the defendant’s Suit in O.S.No.377 of 2004. At trial, first plaintiff - Manickammal was examined as D.W.1 and two other witnesses were examined as D.W.2 and D.W.3, and Ex-B.1 was marked on the side of the plaintiffs herein, who were defendants in the defendant’s Suit. The defendant -Arunachalam was examined as P.W.1 and three other witnesses were examined as P.W.2 to P.W.4, and Ex-A.1 to Ex-A.6 were marked on the side of the defendant herein, who was the plaintiff therein. Advocate Commissioner was appointed whose Report and Plan were marked as Ex-C.1 and Ex-C.2 respectively. Further, Ex-X.1 – Chitta and Ex-X.2 – Adangal Extract for the Fasli Year 1418 were marked through P.W.3 – Village Administrative Officer. 5.1. After completion of trial and after hearing both sides, the Trial Court concluded that the defendant is in possession and enjoyment of the Suit Property more than the statutory period and has perfected title by adverse possession. Accordingly, it decreed the defendant’s Suit in O.S.No.377 of 2004 and dismissed the plaintiffs’ Suit in O.S.No.516 of 2004 vide its Common Judgment and Decree dated December 22, 2009. FIRST APPELLATE COURT 6. Accordingly, it decreed the defendant’s Suit in O.S.No.377 of 2004 and dismissed the plaintiffs’ Suit in O.S.No.516 of 2004 vide its Common Judgment and Decree dated December 22, 2009. FIRST APPELLATE COURT 6. Feeling aggrieved, the plaintiffs preferred an appeal in A.S.No.14 of 2010 over the defendant’s Suit, as well as an appeal in A.S.No.26 of 2011 over the their Suit before the First Appellate Court. The First Appellate Court after hearing both sides and perusing the documents available on record, concluded that the defendant failed to establish necessary animus possidendi and that his possession was adverse to the real owner viz., plaintiffs. Accordingly, allowed both the appeals and decreed the plaintiffs’ Suit in O.S.No.516 of 2004 and dismissed the defendant’s permanent injunction Suit vide its Common Judgement and Decree dated February 1, 2012. SECOND APPEAL 7. Feeling aggrieved, the defendant has preferred this Second Appeal over the Appeal Suit in A.S.No.26 of 2011 which was preferred over the plaintiffs’ Original Suit. It appears that the defendant has not preferred any appeal over A.S.No.14 of 2010 which was filed over his Original Suit. The Second Appeal was admitted on April 23, 2018 on the following substantial questions of law: “(a) Whether the First Appellate Court erred in law in granting injunction in favour of the respondent when they admitted that appellant is permissive occupant of the 'A' Schedule property. (b) Whether the appellant has proved that he perfected his title by adverse possession.” ARGUMENTS: 8. Mr.S.Saravana Kumar for Mr.I.Abrar Md. Abdullah, learned Counsel for the appellant / defendant would argue that the defendant is in possession and enjoyment of the Suit Property since 1973 in an open, continuous, and uninterrupted manner. The Revenue records namely Patta, Chitta and Adangal are standing in the defendant’s name. The Title Deed is also under the defendant’s custody as the plaintiffs have admitted the defendant’s possession and handed over the original documents to him. The oral evidence also supports the case of defendant. The plaintiff filed only certified copy of his Title Deed marked as Ex-B.1. No other piece of paper / evidence has been adduced to prove their possession. The oral evidence also supports the case of defendant. The plaintiff filed only certified copy of his Title Deed marked as Ex-B.1. No other piece of paper / evidence has been adduced to prove their possession. The First Appellate Court failed to consider the evidence available on record in the right perspective especially Ex-A.5 – Adangal Extract which proves the defendant’s continuous possession since Fasli Year 1397 [1988] as well as that the plaintiff is residing 50 Kms away from the Suit Property. Further, the Suit is bad for non-joinder of necessary parties, namely daughters of Rathinam. The Trial Court rightly appreciated the evidence, and decreed the defendant’s Suit and dismissed the plaintiffs’ Suit. The First Appellate Court erroneously allowed the appeals and reversed the decisions of the Trial Court. Accordingly, he would pray to allow the Second Appeal, set aside the Common Judgment and Decree of First Appellate Court, and confirm the Common Judgment and Decree of the Trial Court. 9. Mr.G.Vigneshwar for Mr.V.Nicholas, learned Counsel for the respondents / plaintiffs would argue that the first plaintiff is the sister of first defendant. The first plaintiff’s husband purchased the property, and out of trust and confidence allowed his brother-in-law / defendant to manage the Suit Property. Permissive possession would never turn hostile to the real owner. The evidence available on record would show that during the lifetime of Rathinam i.e., till 1993, he used to visit the Suit Property asserting his title and possession over the same. After his demise, the first plaintiff along her children used to visit the Suit Property whenever she visits her mother asserting title and possession. The defendant misusing the trust and confidence confided on him by the plaintiffs, clandestinely mutated the revenue records in his favour in collusion with the revenue authorities without notice to the plaintiffs about the mutation of records. The defendant never denied plaintiffs’ title before the Suit and he was always a permissive occupants to the plaintiffs and the world. Mere permissive possession however long without necessary animus and without being adverse to the real owner, would never turn into adverse possession. Further, inviting attention of this Court to Paragraph No.3 of the plaint, he would argue that the Suit has been filed for the benefit of the other co-owners, namely the two daughters of first plaintiff also. Mere permissive possession however long without necessary animus and without being adverse to the real owner, would never turn into adverse possession. Further, inviting attention of this Court to Paragraph No.3 of the plaint, he would argue that the Suit has been filed for the benefit of the other co-owners, namely the two daughters of first plaintiff also. There is no adverse interest among the plaintiffs and the said two daughters. Hence, the plea of non-joinder of necessary parties is not sustainable. Last but not the least, he would contend that the Second Appeal is not maintainable and barred by res judicata. The Trial Court was wrong in its findings. The First Appellate Court appreciated the evidence in the right perspective and allowed the appeals and decreed the plaintiffs’ Suit and dismissed the defendant’s Suit. There is no reason to interfere with the same. Accordingly, he would pray to dismiss the Second Appeal. 9.1. He would rely on the following decisions in support of his contentions: (i) Sri Gangai Vinayagar Temple’s Case - Judgment of Hon'ble Supreme Court in Sri Gangai Vinayagar Temple -vs- Meenakshi Ammal, reported in (2015) 3 SCC 624 ; (ii) Rajeshwari’s Case - Judgment of this Court in Rajeshwari -vs- Perumal, reported in 2019 (1) CTC 781 . DISCUSSION: 10. This Court has heard on either side and perused the materials available on record in light of the Substantial Questions of Law. 11. The relationship between the parties is admitted. The plaintiffs are residing in Pallipatty Village which is 50 kilometres away from the Suit Village. The first plaintiff’s mother and her brothers, including the defendant, were residing in the Suit Village. The first plaintiff’s husband – Rathinam purchased the Suit Property vide Ex-B.1 – Sale Deed. Ex-A.5 – Adangal Extract would show that Rathinam was in possession and enjoyment of the Suit Property up to the Fasli Year 1396 i.e., up to 1987. Admittedly, Rathinam passed away in the year 1993 and conjoint reading of the evidence available on record would show that till his demise, Rathinam visited and inspected the Suit Property asserting his title and lawful possession over the same, and after his demise, the plaintiffs were doing so until the demise of first plaintiff’s mother in 1996. Admittedly, Rathinam passed away in the year 1993 and conjoint reading of the evidence available on record would show that till his demise, Rathinam visited and inspected the Suit Property asserting his title and lawful possession over the same, and after his demise, the plaintiffs were doing so until the demise of first plaintiff’s mother in 1996. The defendant / P.W.1 himself as well as D.W.3 – Ramalingam, who is none other than another brother of first plaintiff, has deposed corroborating the aforesaid facts. Relevant extract of P.W.1’s evidence reads thus: 12. The Suit Property measuring 32 Cents is situate on the eastern side of Survey No.17/5, total extent of which is 63 Cents. The defendant purchased the remaining extent of Survey No.17/5 subsequently in the year 1985 through Ex-A.1 – Sale Deed. In Ex-A.1, the eastern boundary of the property covered thereunder has been described as Rathinam’s land, which means the defendant had no animus to deny the title of the first plaintiff’s husband - Rathinam till 1985. There is no clear cut evidence to show when the defendant’s possession turned adverse to the real owner. P.W.1 / defendant himself has admitted in his evidence that there was no notice to the plaintiffs before mutation of the revenue records in respect of Suit Property. As stated supra, the plaintiffs and the defendant are close relatives. Hence, from the evidence available on record, it could inferred that out of trust and confidence, the Suit Property was entrusted to the defendant for management by the plaintiffs’ family, who were residing far away from the Suit Village. Hence, the defendant’s possession, irrespective of the duration, would not turn adverse to the plaintiff’s family, unless the defendant pleads and proves that he is in possession and enjoyment of the Suit Property in derogation of the plaintiffs’ title and rights over the Suit Property with their notice of the same. In this case, there is no evidence available on record to suggest such possession and notice. Adverse possession is wrongful possession of property claiming right over the same against that of the true owner. Hence, equity does not lie in favour of a person pleading adverse possession. 13. It is fruitful to refer to the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Karnataka Board of Wakf -vs- Govt. Adverse possession is wrongful possession of property claiming right over the same against that of the true owner. Hence, equity does not lie in favour of a person pleading adverse possession. 13. It is fruitful to refer to the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Karnataka Board of Wakf -vs- Govt. of India , (2004) 10 SCC 779 , wherein it has been held as follows: “ 11. In the eye of the law, an owner would be deemed to be in possession of a property so long as there is no intrusion. Non-use of the property by the owner even for a long time won't affect his title. But the position will be altered when another person takes possession of the property and asserts a right over it. Adverse possession is a hostile possession by clearly asserting hostile title in denial of the title of the true owner. It is a well-settled principle that a party claiming adverse possession must prove that his possession is “nec vi, nec clam, nec precario”, that is, peaceful, open and continuous. The possession must be adequate in continuity, in publicity and in extent to show that their possession is adverse to the true owner. It must start with a wrongful disposition of the rightful owner and be actual, visible, exclusive, hostile and continued over the statutory period. (See S.M. Karim v. Bibi Sakina [ AIR 1964 SC 1254 ], Parsinni v. Sukhi [ (1993) 4 SCC 375 ] and D.N. Venkatarayappa v. State of Karnataka [ (1997) 7 SCC 567 ] .) Physical fact of exclusive possession and the animus possidendi 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. A person pleading adverse possession has no equities in his favour. A person pleading adverse possession has no equities in his favour. Since he is trying to defeat the rights of the true owner, it is for him to clearly plead and establish all facts necessary to establish his adverse possession. [Mahesh Chand Sharma (Dr.) v. Raj Kumari Sharma [ (1996) 8 SCC 128 ] .]” 14. Further, this Court in Smt.Mamutha Bai -vs- G.Ramakrishnan , reported in 2024 (3) CTC 622 has summarized the law of adverse possession as follows: “ 31.This Court deems fit to summarise the law in this regard. Adverse Possession commences with wrongful possession and is asserted against rightful ownership. Essential pleadings include actual, conclusive, open and uninterrupted hostile possession with clear intent to claim ownership of the property in question, contrary to the true owner's rights. In order to claim adverse possession, specific averments as to when and how the possession became adverse to the true owner are necessary for computing the limitation period from thereon. The plea of adverse possession is essentially a factual plea and such plea should be pleaded specifically and proved by adducing substantive legal evidence. Long Possession by itself would not be sufficient to prove adverse possession. Animus Possidendi against the true owner is also necessary. Further, permissive possession would never be adverse to the real owner.” 15. Mutation of revenue records, payment of Kist, custody of the original Title Deed, mere long possession and enjoyment for more than the statutory period, are alone not sufficient to constitute adverse possession, unless denial of title is brought to the knowledge of the title holder. Limitation clock begins to tick only when the denial of title is conveyed to the real owner either expressly or impliedly. There is no evidence available on record to suggest the same in this case. 16. Moreover, the defendant has not preferred an appeal over the dismissal of his Appeal Suit by the First Appellate Court. To be noted, at the instance of the defendant, joint trial of both the Original Suits was ordered. Issues in both the Suits are substantially one and the same. Common evidence has been taken. The Suits have been dealt with by Common Judgment and Decree by the Trial Court as well as the First Appellate Court. However, the defendant has preferred an appeal before this Court only over the dismissal of the plaintiffs’ Suit and not his Suit. Issues in both the Suits are substantially one and the same. Common evidence has been taken. The Suits have been dealt with by Common Judgment and Decree by the Trial Court as well as the First Appellate Court. However, the defendant has preferred an appeal before this Court only over the dismissal of the plaintiffs’ Suit and not his Suit. Hence, the present Second Appeal is barred by the principle of res judicata as rightly contended by the Respondents’ Counsel [See (i) Premier Tyres Limited -vs- Kerala Road Transport Corporation, 1993 Supp (2) SCC 146 (ii) Sri Gangai vinayagar’s Case (iii) Rajeshwari’s Case ]. 17. Further, since the Suit has been filed for the benefit of the all co-sharers, including the two daughters of Rathinam and first plaintiff as pleaded in plaint Paragraph No.3, the plea of non-joinder of necessary parties, namely the two daughters is not sustainable. 18. In view of the foregoing narrative, this Court is of the view that the plaintiffs have proved their title over the Suit Property, whereas the plea of adverse possession is not proved by the defendant. Hence, the First Appellate Court was right in decreeing the plaintiffs’ Suit for declaration and injunction while dismissing the defendant’s Suit. There is no need to interfere with the same. Substantial Questions of Law are answered accordingly. CONCLUSION: 19. Resultantly, the Second Appeal is dismissed. Keeping in mind the facts and circumstances of the case, there shall be no order as to costs. Connected Civil Miscellaneous petition shall be closed.