16.Further, the second defendant by pleading adverse possession, has impliedly accepted the initial title of the plaintiff to the suit property. Even in the judgment which has been cited on the side of the second defendant, the learned Judge has observed that only if there is an unoccupied gramanatham, the Government would have a right to assign the same to individuals. Admittedly, this not un-occupied gramanatham, since the property has been conveyed to the family of the plaintiff decades above. The second defendant is claiming a right to the property on the basis of Ex.B1, patta and it is seen that the said patta is said to have been issued after enquiry, however no proof whatsoever has been filed to show that the plaintiff, who has a document of title to the suit property, has been issued with notice prior to the patta being granted to the second defendant. In absence of these records, both the Courts below have rightly held that the second defendant has not proved his possession to the property and considering the fact that the suit property is a vacant site the principle of law that title follows possession would definitely apply in favour of the plaintiff. Hence, I do not find any cause for interfering with the concurrent judgments of the Courts below. Accordingly, the substantial questions of law are answered against the appellant/second defendant.
