uninterruptedly, continuously from 1962 onwards. In the written statement filed by her she has admitted that the property was held by her husband, the first defendant, and later on he had given his entire right, title and interest over the property by way of a registered document dated 07.10.1976. That document was not produced. But the pleading raised in the written statement by the second defendant would show that she is a person litigating under her husband, in so far as the plaint schedule property is concerned. The suit was filed when she had commenced construction of a basement over the property. Since she is a person claiming under her husband, she is bound by the result of proceeding initiated by her husband for getting the benefit conferred under Section 72 of the Kerala Land Reforms Act. It amounts to admitting permissive possession. Later on she cannot turn down and claim adverse possession and limitation, unless there is a clear ouster. No clear ouster, much less any action of ouster, pleaded anywhere in the written statement. Further, her claim that she is in possession adverse to the interest of lawful owner from 1962 onwards itself is self explanatory regarding the falsity of claim and it is against the pleading raised in the written statement that she had obtained possession of
