K.T. Huchegowda vs Deputy Commissioner on 18 March, 1994
12. However, the plaintiff's counsel contended that even otherwise, the plaintiff is entitled to seek the reliefs sought for in the suit on the footing that she has acquired title to the suit property by adverse possession. No doubt, that the plaintiff has pleaded that she and her predecessors in interest had been in possession and enjoyment of the suit property for more than 30 years, openly, continuously and uninterruptedly to the knowledge of one and all and prescribed title by way of adverse possession. That such a right could be claimed by the plaintiff can be seen from the decision of the Apex Court relied upon by the plaintiff's counsel reported in (1994) 3 SCC 536 (K.T.Huchegowda Vs. Deputy Commissioner and others). Further, only conditional assignment had been granted in favour of Moopandi and Moopandi had breached the said conditions by alienating the suit property in favour of Arumuhathudayar and when the third defendant has passed the order holding that the sale effected in favour of Arumuhathudayar is against law and re-classified the suit property as Adi dravidar Tharisu land by his proceedings dated 14.04.92, accordingly, it is seen that for the plaintiff to claim title to the suit property by way of adverse possession, she has to establish that for the past 30 years prior to Ex.A11 proceedings, she and her predecessors in interest had been in possession and enjoyment of the suit property openly, continuously and uninterruptedly enjoying the same, exhibiting hostile ownership to the defendants as full owners thereof and thereby prescribed title to the same by adverse possession. Accordingly, it is seen that the plaintiff has also pleaded in the plaint that for the past 30 years, it is only she who is in possession and enjoyment of the suit property from the days of her predecessors in interest for claiming the relief on the basis of adverse title.