K.V. SWAMYNATHAN AND ORS. v. E.V. PADMANABHAN AND ORS

Citation: [1990] SUPP. 3 S.C.R. 709

Court: Supreme Court of India

Bench: K.N. SAIKIA, M. FATHIMA BEEVI

Case summary

Code of Civil Procedure, 1908---0rder 7, rule I-Suit for possession-Delivery pursuant to Court's decree-Effect, of-Question of adverse possession-When arises. The suit was decreed in favour of the father of the appellants, against which appeal preferred, was also dismissed.

Judgment text

K. V. SWAMYNATHAN AND ORS. v. E. V. PADMANABHAN AND ORS. DECEMBER 21, 1990. [K. N. SAIKIA AND M. FATHIMA BEEVI JJ. ] Constitution of India, 1950-Article 136-Concurrent findings of trial Court and High Court-Interpretation of document of title and finding ofexistence ofadverse possession-Whether questions oflaw. Code of Civil Procedure, 1908---0rder 7, rule I-Suit for possession-Delivery pursuant to Court's decree-Effect, of-Question of adverse possession-When arises. Transfer of Property Act, 1882-Sections 54, 55(f)-Sale-De/ivery when takes place-Duty ofseller indicated. The appellants-plaintiffs instituted a suit (O. S. No. 298/76) against the respondents-defendants, for title and exclusive ownership of the suit-properties in T. S. No. 666/2 and for recovery of possession and for damages for wrongful use and occupation of the properties by the defendants.

The appellants-plaintiffs' case was that originally the suit-properties were joint-family properties of one Annayyar, who adopted one Vakil Ramaswamy as his son. After the adoption he had three aurasa sons-Ellayar, Sankaranarayana Iyar and Meenakshisundaram Iyer. On 21. 8. 1896, a partition was entered Into between the Annayyar and his sons and the properties including the suit-properties were allotted to the aurasa sons. On 31. 5. 1926 over the properties, the aurasa sons executed. a mortgage deed In favour of one Yaghasami Iyer, who obtained a decree f"tling a suit (O. S. No. 147/1932). On 4. 7. 1934 when the hypotheca was brought to sale by the mortgagee in execution of the decree in O. S. No. 147/1932, the aurasa sons executed a subsequent mortgage deed in favour ofone Salem Bank. On 9. 12. 1942, the Bank mortgaged the properties to the father of the appellants.

While so, he also purchased vide a sale deed an undivided l/3rd share of the equity of redemption in the properties from Sankaranarayana Iyar, one ofthe aurasa sons of Annayyar. On 12. 12. 1942, Ellayyar, another aurasa son, entered into an agreement with the father of the appellants for the sale of his 1/3rd share. Defendants 13 and 14, meanwhile, in collusion with Ellayyar brought into existence a sale deed in their favour by antedating an agreement for sale of his share. This forced the father of the appellants • · to file a suit (O. S. No. 202of1942) against Ellayyar and his sons and the defendants 13 and 14, for specific performance of the agreement for sale. The suit was decreed in favour of the father of the appellants, against which appeal preferred, was also dismissed. On 7. 2. 1945, in pursuance to the decree, the Court executed a sale deed in favour of the father of the appellants, and symbolic possession 0 ofthe properties was taken by him.

The appellants contended that their father had mortgage rights over the suit-properties in T. S. No. 666/2 and he had become the owner of the equity of redemption in respect of 2/3rd of the properties in T. S. No. 665 and T. S. No. 666. The balance share of 1/3rd was purchased by the defendants 13 and 14 from Meenakshisundaram, the youngest aurasa son of Annayyar, on 29. 12. 1942. The father of the appellants filed a suit for partition and separate possession of the 2/3rd share (O. S. No. 54 of 1950) against the defendants 13 and 14. On 28. 3. 1950, a preliminary decree for partition and separate possession was passed by consent of the parties. When the fmal decree proceedings were pending a compromise was entered into by the parties, according to which, final decree was passed on 6. 10. 1950. As per the fmal decree the properties were demarcated and allotted between the parties and on 19. 1.

1953 the father of the appellants was issued possession receipt, who could take only the symbolic possession of the properties, because tenants were there in the properties. Since then the father of the appellants and the appellants were in possession ofthe suit-properties. SWAMYNATHAN v. PADMANABHAN 711 Further the appellants-plaintiffs averred in the instant suit-plaint that a portion of the land was acquired by the Municipality and in C. C. No. 3 of 1957 the Municipality was ordered to pay the appellants compensation for the land acquired by it. It is stated that the names of the appellants were recorded iu Revenue Recor~ and in the Town Survey Field Register and the House Tax Demand Register of the Municipality. The appellants· were paying the Municipal Property tax of the house Door Nos. 268, 269, 270, 271, 271-A and 272 in T. S. No. 666/2 . • from 1. 4. 1964 to 30. 9. 1969, when respondents-defendants 1 to 3 made objections and the Municipality registered the Door Nos.

272 in the name of the defendant No. 1, whereas Door Nos. 269, 270, 271 and 271-A were registered in the names of the defendants Nos. 2 and 3 and Door No. 268 in one Kalyana Sundaram's name. The appellants filed a writ petition \ll! ainst such alternations made by the Municipality, which was dismissed by the High Court, as remedy was available by suit. When their appeal was dismissed, by the·Division Bench of the High Court, the appellants-plaintiffs filed the instant suit (O. S. 298/ 1976). Defendant No. l's case was that the portion of the suit properties, consisting of Door Nos. 269 to 272 became her. father-in-law's properties under a family arrangement, as be being the adopted son of Annayyar. On his death, his son, the husband of the defendant No. 1, became entitled to the properties in T,S. No. 666/2 and be was in possession and enjoyment thereof directly and through tenants. On 1. 5. 1945 defendant No. l's husband leased out a vacant site in T. S. No.

666/2 to the father of the defendants 2 to 4 for a period of 10 years, whereon the lessee put up Door Nos. 269, 270, 271 and 271-A. On the death of her husband, the defendant No. 1 granted fresh lease to the defendants 2 to 4, who sublet the buildings to defendants 5 to 8. The defendant No. 1 stated that her predecessors and she was in -, continuous and uninterrupted possession of the suit-properties in T. S. No. 666/2 for more than 60 years and bad perfected title to the suit- properties by adverse possession and the appellants-plaintiffs did not have any right, title or interest over the suit-properties. She also denied all other contentions ofthe plaintiffs. The second defendant corroborated the facts ,stated by the first defendant and adopted the written statement of the defendant No. 1. The sixth defendant stated that he took Door No. 270 on lease from the father of the defendants 2 to 4 to do business and the Cather-inlaw of the defendant No. 6, the defendant No.

7, took the Door No. 271 on lease from the father of the defendant Nos. 2 to 4 and later on the • defendant No. 6, the son-in-law of defendant no. 7 took possession of Door No. 271 from defendant No. 7 and the business run by him therein. The defendant No. 6 adopted the written statement of his lessors-defendants 2 to 4. In the joint-written statement, the defendants 9 and IO claimed to be in possession of Door No. 272, which was belonging to the Mahaganapathi Dhandayathapani Swamy temple of the Sambanda Swamy Matam. According to the defendants 9 and IO, their father had been in occupation of the Door No. 272, as he was doing the services in the temple and on his death, the defendants 9 and IO, being his sons, were in possession and enjoyment thereof. They also averred that the proceedings in O. A. No. 28 of 1970 were pending before the Deputy Commissioner, Hindu Religions and Charitable Endowment with respect to Door No. 272.

They had perfected title to the property, which was in their possession for more than 50 years. The contentions of the defendant No. 11 were that he was running a petty shop in Door No. 272 for more than 25 years and the R. R. & C. E. Board had issued notices to all occupiers like him to surrender possession to the Sambanda Swamy Matam, as the suit-properties .. belonged to the Matam. The 12th defendant stated that Door No. 268, where he was residing originally belonged to Ellayyar's family. On 14. 11. 1896, under a deed executed by the members of Ellayyar's family, the paternal grand father of the defendant 12 was permitted to live in Door No. 268, and to perform puja in their family temple. The defendant had been performing pooja after the deaths of his grand fatiter and father. The defendant No. 12 stated that ever since 14. 11. 1896 he and his pre-decessors-ininterest had been in possession and enjoyment of Door No. 268. SWAMYNATHAN v.

PADMANABHAN 713 Defendants 13 and 14 stated that in O. S. No. 54/1950 the properties were divided between them and the father of the appellantsplaintiffs and same was allotted and delivered to them. They took delivery of possession of the same, wherein they had put up superstructures and subsequently affected partition between them. All the respondents-defendants claimed that the appelalntsplaintiffs had no right, title or interest on the suit-properties in T. S. No. 666/2; that the suit was barred by limitati~n; that plaintiff-appellants could not claim any relief from them; and that all of them have perfected title, as they were in uninterrupted and peaceful possession ~·· and enjoyment of the suit properties in T. S. No. 666/2 since a long time. During the pendency of the suit, the defendant No. 15 was impleaded, being the legal representative of the defendant No. 1, on her death.

Dismissing the suit, the trial Court held that the appellantsplaintiffs had no title to the suit properties, that the husband of the defendant No. 1 and his heirs had been in possession and enjoyment of Door Nos. 269 to 272 through their tenants for over the prescriptive period, that Door No. 272 and T. s. No. 666 were not temple properties as contended by defendants 9 and 10, that the 12th defendant was entitled to be in occupation of a portion of Door No. 268 in lieu of his services to the temple. 1n their appeal to the High Court, the appellants-plaintiffs contended that the trial Court erred in coming to the conclusion that the plaintiffs bad no title to the suit properties; and that when once the title of the plaintiffs to the suit properties was found in their favour, it was for the defendants to establish that they had prescribed title to the suit properties by adverse possession and limitation.

The respondents-defendants contended that the title having been found in their favour, the suit was rightly dismissed. Dismissing the appeal of the appellants, the High Court held that as the appellants-plaintiffs had not proved their title over the suitproperties, they were not entitled to a decree for recovery of possession of the suit-properties. The High Court also declined the leave to appeal. In this Court, the respondents raised a preliminary point contending that this appeal against the concurrent findings of the Courts below to be dismissed. The appellants contended that the questions formulated by the High Court were questions oflaw. It wa~ the contentions of the appellants that their father had derived title to suit properties-the 2/3rd shares of the aurasa sons as Annayyar, on the basis of sale deeds dated 19. 12. 1942 and 7. 2.

1945 executed in his favour about 38 years prior to the filing of the instant suit, which were executed by the Court in pursuance of the decree for specific performance; that the defendants 13 and 14 purchased I/3rd share of the 3rd aurasa son by the sale deed dated 29. 12. 1942; that all the three sale deeds expressly referred to the suit-properties in T. S. No. 666/2, even though there was no reference as to the boundaries and the • High Court erred in not mentioning in its judgment the vital fact that the sale deeds-the documents of title-expressly included the suitproperties; that other documents like the mortgage deed dated 4. 7. 1934, the deed of assignment of mortgage right dated 9. 12. 1942, the deed of mortgage dated 31. 5. 1921, the sketch and the revenue map etc. expressly referred to the suit-properties; that though the instant suitproperties were not the subject matter in the partition suit in O. S. No.

54 of 1950, between the father of the appellants-plaintiffs and defendants 13 and 14, it would not affect their title to the instant suitproperties; that by a process of argumentative inference title was to be found in the certified copy of the original plaint; that the defendant No. 1 only claimed title or possession related to Door Nos. 269 to 272 and defendant No. 12 (respondent No. 7) claimed the Door No, 268 on the basis of permissive possession vide document dated 14. 11. 1896, that on the questions of adverse possession of Door Nos. 269 to 272 by defendant No. 1 was not justified, as per the witness evidence it was stated that the father-in-law of defendant No. 1 was in possession· only over Door No. 272 and it had commenced by way of permissive possession only at the time of partition between the father-in-law of defendant No. 1 and other members of the family and permissive possession could ... not be converted Into adverse possession because the defendant No.

1 did not set up any evidence to prove that there was such hostile title to the knowledge of the true owner; that the defendant l(respondent No. 8) made sales ofthe suit properties to respondents 9 to 12. The respondents-defendants, on the other hand, contended that the concurrent f"mdings of the Court's below were based on the Exts. and the conduct of the appellants-plaintiffs and their father through-out the litigation. Further they contended that if really T. S. No. 666/2 belonged to the aurasa sons under the partition deed, the plaintiffs' father would be entitled only to 2/3rd share in the suit properties under the sale deeds SWAMYNATHAN v. PADMANABHAN 715 in Ext. A. Sand A.

8, and defendants 13 and 14 would be entitled to the remaining l/3rd share and the instant plaint could have proceeded on the basis that the appellants-plaintiffs were entitled to only 2/3rd share and defendants 13 and 14 were entitled to the remaining 1/3rd share, which was not the basis on which the present plairit had been filed. Dismissing the appeal ofthe appellants-plaintiffs, this Court, HELD: 1. 01. Concurrent fmdings of fact will not be disturbed unless it is shown that there has been a miscarriage of justice or the violation of some procedure or principle or that they have been arrived at by reason of any error or method or mistake through neglect of any aspect of the evidence, or important aspects of the case escaped notice .

or failed to receive due _emphasis, or that the forms of legal 'process · were disregarded or principles of natural justice were violated or sub- '1stantial and grave injustice resulted or that it cannot be supported by the evidence or it is perverse, or that the rule of prudence that the evidence of an unrelial>le witness should not as accepted without corroboration has been departed from. It is also true that they will not be disturbed on the ground that inadmissiable evidence was received, when the findings cannot on any reasonable view be regarded as based or dependent upon such evidence. [731B-D] 1. 02. In an appeal by special leave there has to be a substantial questionoflaw. [7310] 1. 03. Interpretation ofa document oftitle is a questionoflaw. [73111] 1. 04. Construction of a document of title which was the foundation of the rights ofparties necessarily raises a question oflaw. [732B] • 1. 05.

The question as to whether the possession of a person can be regarded in law as adverse possession is partly a question of fact and partly a question of law. [732D] - - Mithilesh Kumari v. Prem Benahi Khare. [1989] 2 SCC 95: J. T. 1989 (1) SC 275, Distinguished. Kaolapati v. Amar, AlR 1939 PC 249: 44 CWN 66; Chunilal V. Mehta & Sons, Ltd v. The Century Spinning and Manufacturing Co. Ltd. , AlR 1962 SC 1314: [1962] 3 Supp. SCR 549; Jadu Gopalv. Panna Lal, A1R 1978 SC 1329: [1978] 3 SCR 855 and Meenakshi Mills, Madurai v. The Commissioner of Income-tax, Madras, AIR 1956 SC 49: [1956] SCR 691, followed. State Bank of Travancore v. A. K. Panikkar, AIR 1971 SC 9%; Kesar Singh v. Ba/want Singh, AIR 1957 SC 487: [1962] Supp. (1) SCR 325; Sabapathiv. Huntlay, AIR 1938 P. C. 91: 173 IC 19; Sitalakshmiv. Venkata, 34 CWN 593, 597; Khoo Sit v. Lim Thean. [1912] AC 323, ,, 325; Sarju v.

Jwaleshwari, AIR 1951 SC 120: [1950] SCR 781; Radha Prasad v, Gajadhar, AIR 1960 SC 115: [1960] 1 SCR 663; Karbada v. Chhaganlal, AIR 1969 SC 395; Robin v. National Trust Ltd. , 101 IC 903: AIR 1927 PC 66; Watt v. Thomas, [1947] AC 484, 486; Sara Veeraswami v. Talluri, AIR 1949 PC 32: 1949 Mad. 487: 75 IA 252; Benmak v. Austin Motor Co. Ltd. [1955] l All. E. R. 326, H. L. Bodhraj v. Sitaram, 40 CWN 257: 160 IC 45; AIR 1936 PC 60 and Virappa v. • Periakaruppan, 49 CWN 211: AIR 1945 PC 35, referred to. The path ofthe Law (1897) in collected Legal Papers Page 173; Best 11th Ed. S. 12-Referred to. 2. 01. In the instant case, while interpreting the Exts. A. 5 and A. 8, and the decree one has to take into consideration what the Parties themselves intended. Quia non refert out quis intionem suam declarat, verbis out rebus ipsis vel factis. It Is immaterial whether the Intention he collected from the words used or the acts done.

Intention was manifested in the acts performed by tbe parties concerned pursuant thereto. It was immaterial that T. S. No. 666 was there In the deeds. lntentio mea imponit nomen operi meo. My intent gives name to my act. Facta sunt potentiora verbis. Facts are more powerful than words. Factum cuique suum adversarie nocere debet. A party's own act should prejudice himself, not his adversary. Traditio loqui facit certam. Delivery makes a deed speak. Delivery gives effect to the words of a deed. What was delivered purusant to the decree on interpretation of the sale deeds has to be accepted as the parties themselves after night-long deliberation fixed and accepted. [745B-D] .. 2. 02 The right to T. S. No. 666/2 having not been acquired at all, no question of adverse possession against the plaintiffs would arise at all. The plaintiffs case has to fail for want of proof of title to T. S. No. 666/2. [745E] 2. 03. Adverse possession by nature implies the ownership of another.

Where one person Is in possession of property under any title, and another person claims to be the rightful owner of the property under a different title, the possession of the former Is said to he adverse possession with reference to the latter. Adverse possession Is a statutory method of acquiring title to land by limitation. It depends on animus or ' SWAMYNATHAN v. PADMANABHAN (SAIK! A, J. ] 717 intent of occupant to claim and bold real property in opposition to all the world; and also embodies the idea that the owner ofthe property bas knowledge oftbe assertion ofownership of the occupant. [745F] 3. 01. Under Section 54 of the Transfer of Property,Act, delivery of tangible property takes place when the seller places the buyer, or such person as be directs, in possession of the property. Under section SS(f) of that Act the seller is to give, on being so required, the buyer, or such person as be directs, such possession of the property as its nature permits. [746CJ 3. 02.

In the instant case the father of the appellants was never proved to have acquired ownership of T. S. No. 666/2. there is no evidence of T. S. No. 666/2 rter having been delivered to him. On the other band the Commissioner's plan and the partition decree did not include T. S. No. 666/2. It cannot, therefore, be said that the father of the appellants acquired any title to it. Obviously the appellants also could not inberittbe same. [746B, DI - Austin on Jurisprudence P, 177, referred to. CIVIL APPELLATE JlJRISDICTION: Civil Appeal No. 1224 of 1980. -.. From' the Judgment and Order dated 18. 12. 1979 of the Madras High Court in Appeal No. 919 of 1975. Shanti Bhushan, P. N. Ramalingam, S. V. Ramesh, S. Balakrishnan, Ramesh N. Keshwani andNijay Kumar for the Appellants. U. R. Lalit, S. Srinivasan and P. K. Chokkalingam for the Respondents. • The Judgment of the Court delivered by K. N. SAIK. IA, J.

This plaintiffs' appeal by special leave is from the Judgment of the Madras High Court, dated 18. 12. 1979 in A. S. No. 919 of 1975, dismissing the appeal against the Judgment and decree of the Subordinate Judge, Erode, dismissing the suit. The plaintiffs in O. S. No. 298 of 1970 sought a declaration that they were the exclusive owners of the plaint schedule properties and for recovery of possession thereof alongwith a prayer that the defendants 1-12 and 15 or such of them_as were liable should be directed to pay Rs. 3,600 as damages for wrongful use and occupation of the suit properties. The suit property as described in schedule B to the plaint is comprised in Town Survey (shortly, T. S. ) No. 666/2 in Erode Municipality. There are in all six house-doors in the suit property bearing Door Nos. 268, 269, 270, 271, 271-A and 272.

The parties for tracing their title admit the following genealogy: GENEALOGY Ellayyar Ellayyar alias Kalyanasundaram Pattabirama Iyer Annayyar (dead) Ayer (dead) (dead) R. P. Seetharama Iyer R. P. Ramahadran R. P. Ellurama J) (dead) (dead) Iyer (dead) R. S. Kothandaraman R. Lokabiraman Iyer (dead) ·r (adopted son) R. A. Ellayar R. A. Sankara R. A. Meenakshi Vakil Ramasamy (dead) narayana Iye. _r Sundaram Iyer Iyer (dead) (dead) (dead) R. Ellusubramania Kalyanarama Subramania R. Sivasubramania Iyer(dead) Iyer (dead) Iyer (dead) wife Nagammal (D-1) The four instant appellants K. V. Swamynathan, K. V. Ganesan, V. Ramasundaram and V. Sam. igasundaram, all sons of K. S. Vaiyapuri Chettiar instituted O. S. No. 298 of 1970 aforesaid against the 14 original defendants, namely, (1) R. Nagammal, widow of R. Ellusubramania Iyer, (2) E. V. Padmanabhan, son of R. K. Venkatasami Naicker, (3) E. V. Gopinath, son of R. K. Venkatasami Naicker, (4) Srimathi Audal, wife of G. Venkatakrishnan, (5) P.

Thambayya Naidu, resident of Door Nos. 268, 269 and 270, (6) P. Rangasami, carrying on business at Door Nos. 271and271-A, (7) A. K. Pangianna, father-in-law of (6) above, (8) Venkatachalam, shopkeeper at Door Nos. 271 & 271-A (9) S. Beshadri Iyer of Door No. 272, (10) Lakshmi Ammal, resident of poor No. 272, (11) A. Ramaswamy of Door No. 272, ( 12) N. B. Darayanasami Sastri, resident of Door No. 268, (13) A. Marimuthu Mudaliar, businessman at Door No. 275-A and (14) A. Arumuga Mudaliar, carrying on business at Door No. 275. By order dated 29. 1. 1974 in I. A. 1283/73, Meenammal, wife . of R. Ramamoorthy Iyer was added as defendant No. 15. A. Marimuttu Mudaliar and A. Nagammal having died, their legal representatives were brought on record. In this- appeal, however, there are only 12 respondents. Ext. A-1 reproduced herein is the sketch map for the site T. S. No. 666 in Ward 1, Brough Road, Brode Town. The plaintiffs' case was: The buildings and the vacant sites in original T. S. No.

666 and T. S. No. 665 which lay North ofT. S. No. 666 were the joint family . properties of the propositus Ellayyar alias Annayyar, hereinafter called Annayyar. Before the aurasa sons were born to Annayyar, he adopted one Ramasamy Iyer, who later came to be known as Vakil Ramasamy Iyer. Besides the adopted son Vakil Ramasamy Iyer, Annayyar had, as would be clear from the gendslogical table, three aurasa sons, namely, R. A. Sllayar, R. A. Sankaranar- -, ... ayana Iyar and R. A. Meenakshisundaram Iyer. Vakil Ramasamy Iyer had three sons, namely, Ellusubramania Iyer, kalayanarama Subramania Iyer and Sivasubramania Iyer. The first defendant, Nagammal is, the widow of Ellusubramania Iyer and daughter-in-law of Vakil Ramasamy Iyer. On 21. 8. 1896 a partition was entered into among Annayyar and his aurasa sons and his adopted son Ramasamy Iyer. Under the partition deed, the suit properties were allotted to R. A. Ellayar, R. A. Sankaranarayana Iyer and R. A.

Meenakshisundaram p Iyer, the aurasa sons of Annayyar. On 31. 5. 1921, the aurasa sons of Annayyar executed a mortgage over the properties, obtained by them under Ext. S. 5 partition deed including the suit properties, to one Yaghasami Iyer who filed O. S. No. 147 of 1932 in the Sub Court, Coimbatore and obtained a decree. When the hypotheca was brought to sale by the mortgagee in execution of the decree, the mortgagors, namely, the aurasa sons executed on 4. 7. 1934 the subsequent Ext. A. 3 mortgage in favour of Salem Bank Limited. The mortgagee, Salem Bank Limited in turn assigned their rights under Ext. A. 3 mortgage to K. S. Vaiyapuri Chettiar. the deceased father of the plaintiffs under Ext. A. 4 dated 9. 12. 1942. While so, the said Vaiyapuri Chettiar purchased an undivided 1/3rd share of the equity of redemption in T. S. Nos. 665 and 666 from R. A. Sankaranarayana Iyer, one of the aur11sa sons of Annayyar. The· sale- deed is marked as Ext. A. 5. On 12. 12. 1942, R. A.

Ellayyar, one of the aurasa sons of Annayyar entered into an agreement with Vaiyapuri Chettiar for the sale of his 1/3rd share in the equity of redemption over T. S. Nos. 665 and 666. Then defendants 13 and 14 in collusion with the said Ellayar brought into existence a sale deed in their favour by antedating an agreement for sale. Therefore, the plaintiffs' father Vaiyapuri Chettiar filed O. S. No. 202 of 1942 in the Sub-court, Coimbatore against R. S. Ellayyar and his sons for specific performance of the agreement for sale of the l/3rd share of the equity of redemption in T. S. No. 665 and 666. The defendants 13 and 14 were also made party defendants to the said suit. The suit ended in a decree for specific performance being granted in favour of the plaintiffs' father Vaiyapuri Chettiar. Appeal from that decree was dismissed by Ext. A. 9 Judgment dated 11. 7. 1946. On 7. 2. 1945, the Subordinate Judge, Coimbatore executed Ext. A.

5 sale deed in favour of Vaiyapuri Chettiar in execution of the decree for specific performance, and he is said to have taken symbolic possession of the properties. Thus, the plaintiffs' father Vaiyapuri Chettiar, the plaintiffs claimed, had mortgage rights over T. S. Nos. 665 and 666, when which were. allotted to the aurasa sons of Annayyar under Ext. S. 5, partition deed and he became the owner of the equity of redemption in respect of 2/3rd of the said properties under Exts. A. 5 and A. 6. The balance of l/3rd share in T. S. Nos. 665 and 666 which was vested .. under R. K. Meenakshisundaram Iyer, the youngest of the three aurasa sons of Annayyar was admittedly purchased by defendants 13 and 14 on 29. 12. 1942 under Ext. A. 6 with a direction to discharge the l/3rd share of the mortgage debt due to the plaintiffs' father under Ext. A. 4 assignment of Ext. A. 3. The plaintiffs' father Vaiyapuri Chettiar, it is averred, then filed O. S. No. 54 of 1960 in the Sub Court.

Coimbatore against defendants 13 and 14 for partition and separate possession of the 2/3rd share in the • buildings and lands in T. S. Nos. 665 & 666. A preliminary decree for partition and separate possession was passed by consent of parties on 28. 3. 1950. Exhibit A. 11 is the certified copy of the preliminary decree in that suit. When the final decree proceedings were pending, Vaiyapuri Chettiar and defendants 13 and 14 entered into a compromise. Accordingly, a final decree was passed on 6. 10. 1960 under Ext. S. 1. Iris the case of the plaintiffs that as per Ext. S. 1final decree the northern portion of T. S. No. 665 and a portion in the western extremity of T. S. No. 664 were allotted to defendants 13 and 14 and the remaining portions of the property in the suit O. S. No. 64 of 1950 were allotted to the plaintiffs' _father. The plaintiffs claimed that their father obtained symbolical possession of the properties allotted to him under the final decree on 19. 1. 1953 under Ext. A.

13 possession receipt passed in fevour of Vaiyapuri Chettiar in S. P. No. 23 of 1961 in 0. S. No. 54 of 1960. According to the plaintiffs symbolic possession happened to be taken by the plaintiffs' father because there were tenants in the buildings on the suit properties. Since that date it is claimed, the plaintiffs' father and the plaintiffs have been in possession of the buildings and vacant portions in T. S. Nos, 665, 666 and 664. In 1954; a portion of T. S. No. 666 was compulsorily acquired by the Erode Municipality. Subsequently T. S. No. 666 came to be subdivided and T. S. No. 666/1 was allotted to the acquired portion and to the remaining portion T,S. No. 666/2. Compensation for the acquired portion in T. S. No. 666 was, it is stated, ordered to be paid to the plaintiffs in C. C.. No. 3 of 1957. Subsequently, it is stated, the plaintiffs were registered as the sole and exclusive owners of T. S. No. 666/2 in the revenue records.

The Erode Municipality also said to have registered the names of the plaintiffs in the Town Survey Field Register. Again in March-April, 1964 the Erode Municipality is said to have registered the names of the plaintiffs in the House Tax demand register in respect of house doors Nos. 268, 269, 270, 271, 271-A and 272, situated in T. S. No 666/2. The plaintiffs claim to have been paying the property tax to the Municipality from 1st April, 1964 to 30th September, 1969, Whereat defendants 1 to 3 having raised objections the names in the property tax register were altered and Door No. 272 was registered in name of the first defendant and Door Nos. 269, 270, 271, & 271-A were registered in the names of the defendants 2 and 3. Door No: 269 was registered in the name of Kalyanasundaram Iyer. When the plaintiffs came to know of these alterations they filed Writ Petition No.

2790 of 1967 against the alterations but the Writ Petition was dismissed on the ground that the remedy of the plaintiffs lay in • civil suit. Their writ appeal also failed. Subsequently they filed the instant suit O. S. 298 of 1970 for aforesaid reliefs. According to the plaintiffs, the defendants have no manner of right or title over the suit properties. Defendants 1, 2, 6, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, and 14 filed separate written statements. . The first defendant has denied that the building and the vacant site in T. S. Nos. 666 and 665 belonged to Annayyar and his three i'Urasa sons. According to her, her father-in-law Vakil Ramasamy Iyer bacame entitled to the portion consisting of Door Nos. 269 to 272, Brough Road, Brode under a family arrangement. On his death, his son, her husband Ellusubramania Iyer, became entitled to the properties and he was in possession and enjoyment thereof directly and through tenants. On 1. 5.

1945, the first defendant's husband Ellusubramania Iyer based out the vacant site comprised in then T. S. No. R ·666 to one R. K. Venkatasamy Naicker, deceased father of defendants 2 to 4 for a period of ten years under Ext. S. 34. The said Venkatasamy Naicker put up Door Nos. 269, 270 and 271-A in T. S. No. 666. On the death of her husband and Venkatasami Naicker the first subject matter of that partition deed then the houses of Sivarama Chetty and Ponnaya Chetty both have to be of the Western boundaries . I under partition. It may be mentioned that the High Court clearly found a Chatram on T. S. No. 66,6. With reference to the partition suit OS No. 54 of 1950 it is submilted that even if T. S. No. 666 had not been the subject matter of partition in the suit between the plaintiff Vaiyapuri Chettiar and the defendants 13 and 14, yet it would not affect their title to Survey No.

666 but would continue to be joint between them, and that it is settled law that persons can bring a suit for possession over a property against persons who do not have any title to it particularly if they join all ) ,, SWAMYNATIIAN v. PADMANABHAN [SAIKIA, J. ] 735 ; concerned as defendants. Since defendants 13 and 14 hav. e been impleaded as defendants in the suit it would be immaterial as to whether in suit OS No. 54 of 1950 T. S. No. 666 had or had not been divided between them. Counsel points out that the certified copy of the original plaint showed that the first part of the description of the property was in Tamil which referred to T. S .. Nos. ·. 665 & 666 ,and only thereafter something had been added by typing in English which might at the best introduce some ambiguity in the document relating to the partition suit and, therefore, the document related to question of title which arose out of the title deed executed in 1942 and 1945 i. e. Ext. A. 6. and A. 8 could be referred to.

Thus b_y aJlrocess of argumentative inference title is to be found in this document. ' . Counsel points out that the first defendant did not claim any title or possession to the whole of T. S. No. 666 but only to the part of that T. S. number where Door Nos. 269 to 272 were situated as shown in Sketch Plan shown as Ext. A. 1 and para 3 of her written statement clearly showed that her sole claim to the title or possession related to that portion only of survey No. 666 whereupon Door Nos. 269 to 272 were situated and DW-1, the sole witness of Defendant No. 1, said in his evidence: "During my father-in-law's childhood days itself his father Ramaswamy Iyer died. Partition was effected. In it, under -, Ex.. B. 5 in T. S. No. 666 there was no share given to Vakil Ramaswamy Iyer. " It is also submitted that the defendant No. 12 was the Poojari N. G. Narayanasami Sastri who is respondent No.

7 herein and who has given evidence as DW-4 acted as such on the basis of the permission given to him by document dated 14. 11. 1896 and since then he and his ancestors had been in possession of Door No. 268. It is further submitted that in 1956 when a part of survey No. 666 was compulsorily acquired under the Land Acquisition Act for the construction of a lane by the· Municipal Board that part was No. 666/ 1 and the rest of the Survey No. 666 was numbered as 666/2 and the Award dated 21. 8. 1953 was only in favour of the plaintiff Vaiyapuri Chettiar which also indicated that he was the owner of T. S. No. 666 and was entitled to compensation and respondent No. 7 was a party among others to the Land Acquisition Proceedings. On the question of adverse possession it is submitted by Mr. Shanti Bhushan that even the claim of adverse possession of Door • Nos. 269 to 272 was not justified in law and DW-1 who is the son-inlaw of Defendant No.

1clearly deposed: "But a permission was given to Vakil Ramasamy Iyer to stay in one portion ofT. S. No. 666 to continue his advocate practice. I do not know that, permission was given under Ex. B. 5 or later. But at door No. 272 Ramaswamy Iyer was residing and doing advocate practice. " According to counsel it is clearly a matter of admission that the J possession of Vakil Ramasamy Iyer was only over Door No. 272 and. was limited to that portion of Survey No. 666 and it had commenced by ' way of permissive possession only at the time of partition between him and the rest of the family and no part of Survey No. 666 was given in partition to Vakil Ramasamy Iyer except in Door No. 272 and that permissive possession cannot be converted into adverse possession unless clearly the hostile title is asserted by the person in possession to the knowledge of the true owner; and that no evidence was laid on behalf of the defendant No.

1 that any such hostile title to the knowledge of the true owner was ever set up, so as to prescribe any kind of title to that portion of T. S. No. 666, and their possession could, therefore, be regarded only as possession on behalf of the true owner. It is pointed out that by the sale deeds dated 19. 6. 75, 21. 8. 84 and 22. 8. 84 the legal representatives of defendant No. 1, r. e. respondent • No. 8 herein, had sold the entire suit property, namely, T. S. No. 666 to respondent Nos. 9 to 12. It should, however, be noted that the question of permissive or hostile possession presupposes title of the plaintiffs without which the question would not arise at all. Mr. U. R. Lalit, learned counsel appearing for the respondents, submits in refutal that the concurrent findings of the courts below are wholly based on the Exts. and the conduct of the plaintiffs and their . , father throughout the litigation.

The plaintiffs' case to the extent that their father Vaiyapuri Chettiar became entitled to 2/3rd share belonging to R. A. Ellayyar and R. A. Sankaranarayana Iyer, the aurasa sons of Annayyar under Ext. A. 5 and from respondents 13 and 14 similarly acquired 1/3rd share of Meenakshisundaram Iyer under Ext. A. 8. is not denied. But it is pointed out that Vaiyapuri Chettiar then filed O. S. 54 of 1950, in the Sub-court, Coimbatore against defendants 13 and 14 for partition and recovery of his 2/3rd share under Exts. A. 5 and A. 8. Exhibit A. 10 is the copy of the plaint filed by Vaiyapuri . H Chettiar where he averred that he had obtained an undivided 1/3rd SWAMYNATHAN v. PADMANABHAN [SAIKIA, J. l 737 ; share of the plaint schedule properties from R. A. Sankaranarayana Iyer under a sale deed dated 10. 12. 1942 Ext. A. 5 and he obtained a decree for specific performance against R. A. Ellayyar and his sons in respect of his 1/3rd share in O. S. No.

202 of 1942 and in execution of the decree in E. P. No. 82 of 1944, the Sub-court had executed a sale deed Ext. A. 8 in his favour on 7. 2. 1945 in respect of the said undivided 1/3rd share belonging to R. A. Ellayyar. It was therein admitted that for the remaining 1/3rd share defendants 13 and 14 had obtained a sale deed, Ext. A. 6, from Meenakshisundaram Iyer and his snos. It is pointed out that the property schedule therein included only T. S. Nos. 664/Part and 665 and buildings bearing New Door Nos. 140 and 141 Brough Road (Ward No. 18) and New Door Nos. 273, 274 and 275 in T. S. Nos. 664/Part and 665. The said property was described as bounded on the East by perundurai Road, on the South by the Chatram etc. buildings, belonging to Sankaranarayana Iyer, Ellayyar and Meenakshisundaram Iyer, on the West by the scavenging lane belonging to Sankaranarayana Iyer, Ellayyar and Meenakshisundaram Iyer and the house of N. N.

Krishnaswamy Mudaliar and on the North by Easwaran Koil Road and Ellusubramania Iyer's house. Significantly the present suit properties which are T. S. No. 666/2 and the buildings bearing Nos. 268 to 272 were not included in the plaint schedule in O. S. No. 54 of 1950. If really the case of the plaintiffs was that . what was conveyed to the aurasa sons of Annayyar under B. Schedule of Ext. B. 5 included or covered Survey No. 666/2, there ' could be no earthly reason why the plaint in 0. S. No. 54 of 1950, which was a suit filed by Vaiyapuri Chettiar, the successor-in-interest of Sankaranarayana Iyer and Ellayyar for partition and recovery of possession of his 2/3rd share could not have included T. S. No. 666/2 and also door Nos. 268 to 272. It is not disputed that O. S. No. 54 of 1950 was filed by Vaiyapuri Chettiar for partition of his 2/3rd share of the property obtained by him under Exts. A. 5 and A. 8. and that the plaint description did not include or cover Survey No.

666/2 and Door Nos. 269 to 272. The fact that Vaiyapuri Chettiar omitted to include T. S. No. 666/2 in the plaint schedule in O. S. No. 54 of 1950 particularly when he has described the plaint schedule properties with meticulous care, mentioning T. S. number of the land as well as door numbers of the buildings therein proves that he did not get any right, title or interest over T. S. No. 666/2 under Exts. A. 5. and A. 8-sale deeds. We find the submission reasonable. Expressio unius est exclusio altorious. Expression of one thing is the exclusion of another. The submission that Vaiyapuri Chettiar in his anxiety to get rid of defendants 13 and 14 from joint ownership of the properties. might f have failed to correctly describe the properties in the plaint in O. S. No. 64 of 1960 is not acceptable. It clearly showed what pwperties wete required by Vaiyapuri Chettiar by dint of Exts. A. 5. and A. 8.

Naturally he could not have laid claim to more than what he teceived under the two transactions evidenced by the two Exts. A. 5 and A. 8. This is consistent with the jack that defendants 13 and 14 also did not raise any claim to T. S. No. 666/2 at all in that suit. Again during the trial o( lJ that suit both parties niade a joint endorcement on the basis of which a preliminary decree Ext. A. 11 dated 26. 3. 1950 was passed granting :i decree in favour of Vaiyapuri Chettiar for 1/3td share of the suit properties. The description of the properties therein was, as it nece1r sarily had to be, the same as in the plaint. Pursuant to the prelimhiary decree the plaintiff, Vaiyapuri Chettiar filed I. A. No. 1452 of 199() Ext. 139 in O. S. No. 54 of 1950 for the appointment or a Commilr' sioner to divide the properties in terms of the preliminary decrees. Accordingly a Commissioner was appointed on 25. 8. 1950 and Ext.

S, 215 was the Commissioner's report wherein the Commissioner had stated that on 23. 9. 1950 he visited the properties and took Measure" ments for dividing the properties into three equal shares. At abdtit 5 0 P. M. the plaintiff and the defendants represented to him that they themselves had come to an agreement regarding the mode of division of the properties in the presence of Panchayatdars. The Patties, the Panchayatdars and the Commissioner set throughout the hight, discussed the mode of division and ultimately came to an agteement with regard to mode of division. An agreement was entered into on the , same day and the said agreement was marked as Ext. A. 13. 5 in that suit. 'A' schedule in the agreement had been allotted to the present defendants 13 and 14 while 'B' schedule had been allotted to Vaiyaputi Chettiar. The property that had been allotted under 'B' schedule of Ext. A. 135 to Vaiyapuri Chettiar comprised T. S. Nos. 664/Part and 665/part and Door Nos.

273 and 274 and the vacant site. The said property was said to be bounded on the North by Easwaran Koil Road and Ellustibramania Iyer's house, on the West by Brough Road, oti the South by Dhandapani Koil and the Chetram and building belonging to Pillar . , yar, Sankaranarayana Iyer and Meenakshisundaram Iyer and on the East by scavenging lane belonging io Ellayyar and the house of N. N. •· Krishnaswami Mudaliar. No portion of T. S. No. 666/2 and none of the • door Nos. 268 to 272 had been included in the A. Schedule property allotted to Vaiyapuri Chettiar under Ext. A. 135. The Commissioner had further stated in Ext. B. 215 that on the basis of the agreement he took measurements and drew up a plan with the help of the kernam of Brode and otie Surveyor. The plan prepared by the Commissioner has been marked as Ext. A. 2. The portion marked 'A' in Ext. A. 2 has been allotted to defendants 13 and 14 and the portion marked as 'S; in I SWAMYNAT! IAill v. PADMANABHAN iSAJKIA, J.

] 739 - i Ext. B. 2 has been allotted to Vaiyapuri Cheitiar. On the basis ofExts. . B. 215 report and A. 2 plan, a final decree was passed by the Sub-court, Colmba:tote in terms of Ext. A. 135 on 6. J0. 1930. Ext. 0. i is the said final decte:e. Pnrsuant to the final dectee; Vaiyaputi Chettia:r obtained possession of the property. Exhibit. A. 12 is the warrant of possession dated 12. 1. 1953 alld it Showed that the property was delivered over without dispossession of those who were shown to be occupying the buildings as found in Ext. B. 2 plan. Mr. Lalit peints out that not a whisper has been made in the present suit that the description of the plaint property in Ext. A. 10 suit was not correct and that for some cause or other T. S. No. 666/2 has been omitted to be included in the plaint schedule. Counsel submiis that if really T. S. No.

666/2 belonged _to tlie aurilSa sons u_nder the partition deed, the plaintiffs' father would be entitled only to 2/3rd share in the suit prop·erties under Exts. A. 5 and A. 8 and defendantS 13 and 14 would he entitled to the remaining 1/3rd share and the present plaint could have proceeded on the basis th~t the plaintiffs were entitled to only 2/3rd share and defendants 13 and 14 were entitled to the remaining l/3rd share. But that is not the basis on which the present plaint had been filed. We find force in this submission. As the High Court observed, no plausible explanation has been given in the plaint as to why the plaintiff's father, who must have known what exactly was the property that lie purchased under Exts. A. 5 and A. 8 did not include t. S. No. 666/2 and Door nos. 268 to 272 in Ext. A. 10 plaint. P. W. 1admitted that no objection was filed ' to Ex!. B. 2 plan (trepared by the Commissioner. P. W.

1 and stated that the Commissioner did not measure the property lying south of the pdrtion marked as 'B' in Ext. H. 2 plan, for being measured by the Commissioner. As Mr. Lalit submits; when Vaiyapuri Chettiar, the Panchayatdars and defendants 13 and. 14 sat with the Commissioner the whole of the night on 23. 9. 1950, they must have been aware of the actual' situs and extent of the land which had to· be divided between Vaiyapuri· Chettiar oil one hand and defendants 13 and 14 on the ot&er. If reaily il\ey were entiiled to t. S. No. 666/2 and Door Nos. 268 "' fo 212, either Vaiyapuri Chettiat or defendants 13 and 14 would surely have insisted the said land being ihcluded and' divided therein. The faifure on the part of Vaiya:puri Chettiar to include the suit properties in 0. $. N6. 54 Of. 1950 and getting them divided therein is very signifieant arid' cannot be ignore& 'Fhere is· also· the mention of an agreement a~~ived'. at betwe·en the parties.

If dearly showed that the documents of tiffo by virtne of which·the· partition was claimed did not mean to irtdude- T. S. No. 666/2. The proceedigs in O. S. No. 54 of 1950, sub_mfts· Mr~ Lalit, commencing' from the filing of Ext. A. 10 plaint and culminatin~ in delivery of p'OssesSion· under Ext. A. 135 are sufficient H' to prove that the plaintiffs' father did not acquire any right over T. S No. 666/2 and door Nos. 268 to 272. Quod per recordum probatum non-debitesse negatum. What is proved by record ought not to be denied. Mr. Lalit refers to Ext. B. 170, the Power of Attorney dated 25. 4. 1904 executed in favour of one Kalyanasundaram Iyer for the purpose of management of Temple properties shown in its B Schedule in Tamil. From the text the High Court held that it was clear that there were two Chatrams and a Pillaiyar Koil which belonged to the Ellayyar family. This clearly belied the submission that there was no Chatram on T. S. No. 666 and the only Chatram was on T. S. No. 668.

It was the Chatram on T. S. No. 666 that formed the southern boundary, in Ext. B-4 Sudhra Chathira tiled house and in Ext. B-5, B Schedule, Sudhra Chaultry. Again, Mr. Lalit points out, the plaintiffs filed an application before the Erode Municipality for permission to put up a construction on the vacant site in the properties obtained by them in execution of the decree in O. S. No. 54 of 1950. Exhibit A. 19 is the approved plan under which the plaintiffs obtained sanction for the construction of the building. A perusal of Exhibit A. 19 sanctioned plan shows that the construction was proposed only in T. S. Nos. 665/ Part and 664/Part. Apart from the site on which the construction was proposed, the plan showed the then existing construction on the property. The southern boundary was given as Door No. 268 and T. S. No. • 666. If really the plaintiffs were entitled to T. S. No. 666/Part they • would not have shown, in Ext. A. 19, T. S. No.

666 as the southern boundary of their properties. The High Court rightly observed that this was one of the circumstances which went against the case of the plaintiffs that they were entitled to the suit properties. P. W. 1 had admitted that the northern boundary in Ex. A. 19 was the common wall which was shown in Ext. B. 2 plan as separating the portions marked as A and B therein. He had further admitted that the measurement on the southern side of the property shown in Ext. A. 19 was 139 . . feet, which tallied with the southern measurement shown in Ext. B. 2 plan. P. W. 1 had also not disputed the fact that the eastern boundary shown in Ext. A. 19 and Ext. B. 2 was the same. The High Court observed that these circumstances clearly proved that the plaintiffs were not entitled to any portion of T. S. No. 666/2 and the buildings therein. Admittedly under Ext. A. 13 the plaintiffs took symbolical possession of the properties allotted to him under Ext. B. I final decree in O. S. No.

54 of 1950. Exhibit A. 13 itself showed that there ~ SWAMYNATHAN "· PADMANABHAN [SAIKIA, J. J 741 were occupants in the buildings found in the portions marked at A and B in Ext. B. 2 plan. Therefore, symbolic possession was delivered. It could by no means show, in view of T. S. No. 666/2 having not been included in the decree, that symbolical possession of T. S. No. 666/2 was taken. It is in evidence that one Devathi Rao was running a hotel in Door Nos. 273 and 274. Exhibit B. 2 plan showed that a coffee club building existed in the B marked portion. Therefore, Devathi Rao was not in occupation of the building situa:ed in T. S. No. 666/2. The 12th defendant was living in Door No. 268 which comprised portions marked A, B and C in Ext. A. 1 sketch and performing poojas in the temple. The 10th defendant was in possession of Door Nos. 271 and 271-A. The 5th defendant Thambayya Naidu was in occupation of Door Nos. 269 and 270.

There is no evidence of the Bailiff having affixed notice of symbolical delivery on Door. Nos. 268 to 272. It is in evidence that in Ext. A. 13 possession receipt contained only the attestation of Devathi Rao, who was conducting a coffee hotel in the B marked portio·n, in Ext. B. 2. It is also in evidence that the plaintiffs did not pay house tax for buildings other then Door Nos. 273 and 274, nor they thought it fit to enquire till 1964 as to who were paying the house tax in respect of the buildings situated in the suit properties. The High Court has rightly observed that it was rather strange that when the plaintiffs have come forward with_ a case that they obtained symbolical delivery of the suit properties under Ext. A. 13 possession reciept in O. S. No. 54 of 1950, they are not in a position even to say as to who were in occupation of the buildings in the suit properties on the date of Ext. A. 13. If there were tanants, as stated by P. W.

1, in the _p_rol'_erties at the time when the plaintiff obtained symbolical possession under Exhibit A. 13, the tenants must have attorned to him and as and when the old tenants left the premises new tenants could have been inducted into the premises only with the knowledge of the plaintiffs, who claim to be the owners •. , of the properties. The High Court has therefore concluded that there was absolutely no evidence of any act of possession having been exercised by the plaintiffs in respect of the properties prior to 1964 except as regards the construction of a lavatory to an extent of 400 square feet. Admittediy prior to 1964 no notice had been given to the contesting defendants by the plaintiffs.

The High Court therefore concluded that the failure to exercise any act of possession over the suit properties and coupled with the fact that the plaintiffs did not even attempt at any time to find out as to how and under what right these various defendants have been in possession of the suit properties can only lead to the irressistible couclusion that the plaintiffs and their predecessors- 742 SUPREM! l COURT REPORTS (1990] Supp. 3 5. CR, in-interest did not obtain any right, title or interest over the suit prop~ erties. We do not find any reason to differ in tllis regard. Mr. Lalit refers us to Ext. B. 34 which is the registered lease deed dated 1. 5. 1946, executed by Ellusubramania Iyer in fevour of R. K. Venkataswamy Naicker, father of defendants 2 to 4 who claimed possession of Door Nos. 269, 270, 271 and 271A. The second defendant in his written statement has stated that his father obtained Ext, B. 34 lease deed and then constructed Door Nos. 268, 270 and 271A.

T[lis plea of the second defendant was made out by Ext. B. 34 lease deed, whereby a vacant site in T. S. No. 666was leased out to Venkataswamy Naicker for a period of ten years on a monthly rent of Rs. 15. The . ' leassee had been permitted to put up building. There was a provision that on the termination of the lease tbe land together with the buildings should be surrendered to the lessor. The lease had been renewed subsequently by the first defendant himself. The High Court observed that when P. W. I was confronted with Ext. B. 34 lease deed, he qid not deny the fact that Ellusubramania Iyer executed Ext. B. 34 in favour of father of defendants 2 to 4. There is no evidence to show that the plaintiffs or anybody else under the permission of the plaintiffs constructed the buildings bearing Door Nos. 269 to 271, There is evidence to show that the second defendant's father having taken lease under Ext. B. 34 from Ellusubramania Iyer and having put up construtions bearing Door Nos.

269 to 271. Exhibits B. 35 to B. 37 are the rent • receipts issued by Ellusubramania Iyer to the leassee for receipt of rents. Exhibits B. 39 to B. 42 are records to show that the leassee Venkataswamy Naicker sublet the buildings to various persons. Exhibits B. 43 and B. 44 are the accounts maintained by Venkataswamy Naicker for the construction of the buildings. The High Court was rightly convinced that door Nos. 269 to 271 were put up by Venkataswamy Naicker pursuant to Ext. B. 34. High Court found it impossible to believe that if really the plaintiffs were entitled to the suit .. / properties, they would have remained quiet when Venkataswamy Naicker had constructed not one but three buildings over the suit properties which would not have failed to attract the attention of the plaintiffs. The explanation that the plaintiffs came to know about the lease deed and the occupation of the defendants 2 to 4 in portion of T. S. No.

666 or any portion of the suit properties only at the time when the plaintiffs filed a writ petition in the High Court, cannot be accepted. It was not denied that the T. S. number referred to in Ext. B. 34 is 666. In Ext. A. 132 dated 24. 5. 1911 entered into among Ellusubra- SWAM):'NATH4N v. l'ADMANA! lHAN \SAll>. jA, J. j 743 μliln~a ~f. i:f 1! 114 pttJ. ers, Ellusubramani11 [yer had b. "! 'n allotted 'A' sroe! li! 4e pr,opelfy. The property ,that fell to the sh. are of Va} ! Jayy,ar ~n ~a;vour . -0f 'Salem iBarik . and iE> m iBank in aavour of Vaiy. apuri1Ghettiar had been filed, along with a copy of revenue map of Erode Town Block No. 23. This means none of the documents connected with 0. S. No. 54 of 1950, on the file of the Sub-court had been filed by the plaintiffs such as Ext. A. 10 plaint, A 11 preliminary decree, B. 213 Commissioner's report, B. l final decree, . B. 2 plan drawn by the Commissioner and . 13 possession receipt.

In the circumstances, the High Court rightly concluded that the mere fact that under Ext. A. 17 order dated 30. 11. 1957 the plaintiffs were allowed to draw the compensation in respect of a portion of T. S. No. 666, could not constitute any proof that the plaintiffs had title to the suit properties. We see no reason to differ. Mr. Shanti Bhushan emphasised the fact of the plaintiffs erecting a lavatory in 1958 covering an area of 400 square feet inside T. S. No. 666/2. Mr. Lalit, however, points out that it was admitted that the first defendant tried to prevent the plaintiffs from constructing it and that notwithstanding the opposition, it was constructed. We agree with the High Court that this opposition strengthened the case of the contesting defendants showing that the plaintiffs were opposed by the first defendant when they attempted to exercise their title over T. S. No. 666/2 by constructing a lavatory as early as 1959.

Admittedly, the plaintiffs had not taken any steps against the first defendant immediately thereafter till 1964. At that time Door Nos. 268 to 272 were existing on the suit properties and the contesting defendants were admittedly in the possession thereof. There was no evidence of any proceeding initiated earlier against them. Mr. Lalit submits that the proceedings of the Erode Municipality with respect to the transfer of registration in respect ofT. S. No. 666, in the name of one or the other parties to the suit was not of much significance as the same had started only in 1964 and the suit was filed in 1970. Therein also, at one stage the transfer of registration was effected by the Municipality in the name of the plaintiffs. But immediately the first defendant raised - -· objection to the same and the Municipality got the registration transferred back to the original name.

Thereupon, the plaintiffs filed the writ petition in the High Court and the same having failed they filed writ appeal which also having failed they filed the present suit for declaration of their title to the suit properties and for possession thereof. On close consideration of the evidence on record, the arguments advanced by the learned counsel for the parties and the reasons given by the High Court affirming the decree of the trial court, and the historical introduction to the derivation of title by the plaintiffs as given by Mr. Shanti Bhushan with analysis and precision, we had to discuss the evidence in detail. However, from what the plaintiffs' father himself considered to have acquired by dint of Exts. A. 5 and A. 8 and the decree obtained by him in O. S. No. 54 of 1950 appeared to us to be much more important than what the plaintiffs have claimed in this suit. While interpreting the Exts. A. 5 and A.

8 and the decree one has to take into consideration what the parties themselves intended. Q! 'ia non refert out quis intionem suam dec/arat. verbis out rebus ipsis ve/ factis. It is immaterial whether the intention be collected from the words used or the acts done. Intention was manifested in the acts performed by the parties concerned pursuant thereto. It was immaterial that T. S. No. 666 was there in the deeds. Intentio mea imponit nomon operi meo. My intent gives a name to my act. Facta sunt potentiora verbis. facts are more powerful than words. Factum cuique suum adversario hocere debet. A party's own act should prejudice himself, not his adversary. Traditio logui facit certam. Delivery ma)<:es a deed speak. Delivery gives affect to the words of a deed. What was delivered pursuant to the _decree on interpretation of the sale deeds has to be accepted as the parties themselves after night-long deliberation fixed and accepted. In the above view of the matter, the right to T. S. No.

666(2 having, not been acquired at all, no question of adverse possession against the plaintiffs would arise at all. The plaintiffs case has to fail for want of proof of title to T. S. No. 666/2. 'fhe second question posed by the High Court would not arise. Adverse possession by nature implies the ownership of another. Where one person is in possession of property under any title, and another person claims to be the rightful owner of the property under a different title, the possession of the former is said to be adverse possession with reference to the latter. Adverse possession is a statutory method of acquiring title to land by limitation. It depends on animus or intent of occupant to claim and hold real property in opposition to all the world; and also embodies the idea that the owner of the property has knowledge of the assertion of ownership by the occupant. "ownership of proper~ is, says Austin, "a species of jus in rem.

It is right residing in a person, over or to a person or thing; and availing ' against other persons universally or generally. The obligations implied by it are also negative as well as universal" (Austin on Jurisprudence p. 177). "It is a right imparting to the owner a power of indefinite user, capable of being transmitted to universal successors by way of descent, and imparting to the owner the power of disposition (from himself and his successors per universitatem and from all other persons who have a spes successionis under any existing concession or disposition), in favour of such person or series of persons as he may choose, with the like capacities and powers as he had himself, and under such conditions as the municipal or particular law allows to be annexed to the dispositions of private persons. " (Ibid, p. 412-13). In the instant case Vaiyapuri Chettiar was never proved to have acquired ownership of T. S. No. 666/2.

Under section 54 of the Transfer of Property Act, delivery of tangible property takes place when the seller places the buyer, pr such person as he directs, in possession of the property. Under section 55{f) of that Act the seller is to give, on being so required, the buyer, or such person as he directs, such possession of the property as its nature permits. There is no evidence of T. S . . No. 666/2 ever having been delivered to Vaiyapuri Chettiar. On the other hand the Commissioner's plan and the partition decree did not include T. S. No. 666/2. It cannot, therefore, be said that Vaiyapuri Chettiar acquired any title to it.. Obviously, the plaintiffs also could not inherit the same. This appeal accordingly fails and is dismissed. We leave the parties to bear their own costs of the appeal. V. P. R. Appeal dismissed. I ,