Vattipalli Muralaiah Vs Singam pedaiah — Telangana HC (2025) — LawSathi Research

Vattipalli Muralaiah Vs Singam pedaiah — Telangana HC (2025) — LawSathi Research

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

No relief granted to the appellants; the Second Appeal is dismissed, the impugned first-appellate judgment and decree are affirmed, and there shall be no order as to costs; pending miscellaneous petitions, if any, stand closed.

Issue for consideration

Whether the plaintiff/appellant acquired title to the subject land by adverse possession (open, exclusive, continuous hostile possession for the statutory period) and was entitled to declaration of title and perpetual injunction. +2 more

Court's answer

The claim of adverse possession would sustain when a person not being the legal owner of the property acquires ownership rights by openly, exclusively and continuously possessing the property for the statutory period.

Ratio / Principle

The plaintiff failed to establish the material ingredients qualifying the statutory requirement for grant of adverse possession: the documents placed by the plaintiff, particularly the pahanies (Exs.A-2 to A-8, Exs.A-9 to A-12, Exs.B-3 to B-8), disclose defendant No.1 as pattedar and possessor of the subject land; the plaintiff's continuous hostile possession against defendants 1 and 2 falls short; and non-filing of the pattedar passbook and title deeds strengthens the defendants' possession as reflected in the pahanies.

Key takeaways

The subject land being open land, placing reliance on entries in the revenue record brought on to record by the plaintiff himself, in juxtaposition of his self-serving claim, is perfectly justified.ratio¶62
The plaintiff's claim relies on post-decretal adverse possession; the appellate court's observation that the claim of title is hit by res judicata is not sustainable, but this would not better the plaintiff's position, as the evidence is failing on essentials of adverse possession.ratio¶65

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Second Appeal under Section 100 CPC against concurrent dismissal of the plaintiff's suit: trial Court (O.S.No.300 of 2008, Junior Civil Judge, Nalgonda, decree dated 05.11.2018) declined declaration of title/perpetual injunction, and the first appellate Court (A.S.No.14 of 2019, Principal District Judge, Nalgonda, decree dated 26.02.2020) confirmed. The plaintiff asserted title over Ac.04.17 guntas in Sy.No.513, Pulipalupula village, Munugode mandal, Nalgonda, claiming perfection of title by adverse possession since 13.08.1996 — pleaded as post-decretal adverse possession running from the date of the counterclaim decree in the earlier suit O.S.No.147 of 1992, in which defendant No.1's title under a 1962 Will Deed of Lilithamma was declared and upheld through A.S.No.62 of 1996 and a second appeal decided 13.06.2001. Held: adverse possession sustains only when a non-owner acquires ownership by openly, exclusively and continuously possessing the property for the statutory period; the pahanies (Exs.A-2 to A-8, Exs.A-9 to A-12, Exs.B-3 to B-8) disclose defendant No.1 as pattedar and possessor; the plaintiff filed neither pattedar passbook nor title deeds; for open land, reliance on revenue entries adduced by the plaintiff himself against his self-serving claim is perfectly justified; hence the plaintiff failed to establish the statutory ingredients of adverse possession. The appellate Court's observation that the claim was hit by res judicata (claims earlier concluded in Second Appeal No 1125 of 2000) was 'though not sustainable', yet did not better the plaintiff's position as the evidence failed on the essentials of adverse possession. Disposition: Second Appeal dismissed; no order as to costs.

IN THE HIGH^{COURT FOR THE STATEOF TELANGANA AT HYDERABAD}

THURSDAY,^{THE TWENTY THIRDDAY OF JANUARY} TWO THOUSAND^{AND TWENTYFIVE}

PRESENT

THE HONOURABLE^{SRI JUSTICE N.TUKARAMJI}

SECOND APPE^{AL NO:149 OF 2020}

AppealunderSectionl00ofCPCagainsttheJudgmentandDecreedated 26-02-2020 made^{in A.s.No.14of 2019 on the file of the court of the Principal} District Judge, Nalgonda,^{preferred againstthe Judgmentand Decree passedin} o'S.No.300of2008dated05-l,l.20lBonthefileoftheCourtoftheJuniorCivil Judge, at Nalgonda.

Between:

l Vattioalli Muralaiah,^{s/o. Narahari Aged about g2 years' OccAgriculture&} ' P;;;'hiiii, ril i pir,pltrpria Viitig.' Ivlu"nusode Manddl, Nalsonda District (Died) per LRs 2 to⁶

...Plaintiff / Appellant^{/ Appellant}

Vattipalli Lakshmamma,^{Wo. VMurlaiah,-Aged about} /Q^1eq1s'.O9c ' i[iiJ,jiiiro," id^";l i,i;i r r .^{-euriparuputa,} rvrunrJsodu Mandar, Pulipalpula, Nalgonda-508244

Vattipalli Satyanarayana^{Sharma.S/o' V MuralidharSharma' Aqed about 53} vears, occ^{Agriculturel Hiii"Hr,t G} -c-+, Sri Sainath Arcad6' New V T Colony, Nalgonda-508001

G.Aniali Devi, Wo.^{G. Prabhakar Sharm?.,Aged about5-6 years-'Occ}

E&!'J,),iitI"Fii"';8 niia;i r'rJsir' rhorrur, Toro6r (Faroor)' Ranga Reddv50151'1

Penna Sharada,^{Wo. Penna fVtohan'Agedab.out 50 yegls.pgcHousewife'}

ir/;. il N;6-r-itstttNz, surya Nasai colonv, Nalsonda-508001

Gadebatla^{Hemalatha'Wo. Gadebatla} ^Shankarashasthry'^{Aged about 40} " ;;;, o;'iousewite,^{Aio. u.N"z-rs, choutuppal ttlandal' Lingoji Gudem'} irlalgonda-508252

!fB'f JSSBltX?r33"3,,o..oi'iJ3,['oT,f^{8-Tsr?:,iii'n[],'"J"13r!1""""0} AND

'1. Singam Pedaiah,^{(Since died through his LRs 2 to B)}

Sinoam Yadaiah,^{S/o. Peddaiah. Aged about 50 years' Occ Agriculture' R/o} F;ii#ilprl;^{niliagE,Nr rnusooe Ma?rdal,Nalsonda District}

Sinqam Srisailam,^{s/o.Peddaiah, Ageda.bout45.years,.occ.AgricultureR/o} F;ifp;i;ili;^{Viliage,It'lunusode Mandal, Nalgonda District}

I

Singam Brrgganma, Wio Late peddaiah, Aged about Z6 yea s, Occ. Agricutture , R.'. pulip6lgpLrla Village. Mr;,;g&;"[/rno,,l (rrqohJ;6i.tri"t

Gundeboir a^yzrdamma., Wo. Maraiah, Age 59 years, Occ. Hcuse hold, Gouraram^posl, Kangai Mandal. N;G"il";^{"" ,"}

Somanabc ina l\ndalu, Wo. Ramachandraiah, Aged about 56 years, Occ. House horr I, R/r:. Brahmana veremari'vrrige.'NYarketpalry t,'ahdar. Nargonda

Manneboir a Salhamma @ Hamsamma, Wo_ BixamaizLh Age about 50 years, Or;c Horrse hotd, R'/o Jentraram'Viiragel iianagrf fr,lu"mniii"filnO,

Nerredi Su lunamma W-/o.Muthaiah, Aged about 4/ ye)rs,Otc. Aqriculture R/o Singar 1m Virrage,MunugoJ, irt';"o1llr.r?UIloa oi,;trrct

...Defendants / Resporrdents / Respondents

lA NO: 1 OF 20 2A

Petition un Jer liection 151 cpc praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit file d in support of the petition, the High Court may be pleased to suspend the judg:ment and decree daled 26tO2l2O2O passed rn AS_No. 14 of 2019 on the file of ihe prl. District Judge, Nalgonda pending disposal of the appeal.

Counsel for the Ar:pellants

Counsel for the Rr:spondents

Sri V V Ramana

Sri Ch Laxminarayan 1 Rep.Sri KVSudhakar

The Court delivere d the following Judgment :

)l

HONOURABLE^{SRI JUSTICE N. TUKARAMJI}

SECOND APPEA^{L NO.149 of 2020}

JUDGMENT:

Heard Mr.^{V.V.Ramana, learned Counsel for the appellants} and Mr.Ch.^{Laxminarayana,learned counsel representing} lvlr.K.V.Sudhakar,^{learned counsel on record for the respondents'} has been^{filed bYthe} 2. This^SecondAPPeal appellants/plaintiff^{assailing thedecreeand judgment dated} 26.02.2020^{in A.S.No.14 of 2019 passed by the Principal District} Judge, Nalgonda^{confirming the decree and judgmentdated} 05.11.2018^{in O.S.No.300of 2008 on the file of the JuniorCivil} Judge,^Nalgonda.

3(a) Briefly^{stated the relevant facts of the case are that the} appellants/plaintiff^{had filed suit O'S'No300 of 2008 assertingtitle} and exclusive^{possessionof an agriculturallandadmeasuring} Ac.O4.lTguntasinSy.No.Sl3situatedatPulipalupulavillage' Munugode^{mandal, Nalgonda District (for short' 'the subiect land')} that he^{had perfected title by way of adverse possession since} 13.08.1996.^{Thus, the suit for declaration of title and perpetual} injunction^{against the defendants'}

2

N"TR,J sA t49 2020

3(b) lt ras been averred that the subject lanr j was originally owned by one Vattipalli Latchaiah and after iris dernise, the property was devolved on his two sons i.e. l)edda Venkata Narsaiah and Chinna Laxmi Narsaiah and other two s,rns were given in adoption. As pedda Venkata Narsaiah -emained issueless his wife succeeded the propefi. On ,:he oil-rer hand, Chinna L axm i Narsaiah had one son who is th: fathr-.r of the plaintiff. Afte,r the death of wife of pedda Verrkata \arsaiah (Lilithamnra), the plaintiffls father (Narahari) be,:ame absolute owner an<l all 1he lands were mutated in his name. 3(c) The plaintiffls father had four sons including lhe plaintiff and in partitior the subject land fell to the plaintiffs share and in .l 996 his name was mutated in revenue records. Nonetheless as the defendant No 1 without any interest or right has b:en in.:erfering with the pc ssession, the praintiff fired suit for perma lent injunction vide O.S.No^'l a.5 of 1992 along with one Kambampati Venkataiah wherein th: de,fendant No..l set up a claim of owrrership basing on a Will f eed of the year.l962 executed by Lilithamma. wife of Pedda Verkatar Narsaiah. pending the suit the defendart No.1 filed countrlr claim seeking declaration of tifle over the subject land and cl;rimed entiflement for possession.

NTR,J sA 149²⁰²⁰

3

3(d) The^{trial Court after due trial dismissed the plaintiffssuit} for^{permanent injunctionand allowed the counterclaimby} observing^{that the plaintiff did not dispute the Will Deed proposed'} in the counter^{claim and declared the defendant's title overthe} subject land.^{That judgmentwas unsuccessfully challengedin} A.S.No.62oflgg6andsubsequentsecondappealalsometthe same fate^{in the year 2001 (13'06'2001)'}

3(d) ln^{this backdropthe plaintiff by pleading that the trial Court} had observed^{the fact that he is in the possessionof the subject} land and^{even after favourableiudgment in counterclaim as the} defendantdidnotcomeintopossessionofthesubjectlandand as he^{is in continuing possession and enjoyment from the last '12} years, he had^{acquiredtitle by way of adversepossession'Thus} prayed for the^{suit relief He furtherpleadedthat earlier the} defendant^{No.1 had filed suit O'S'No'335of 2006seeking} perpetual injunction^{claiming his possession being disturbed over} the suit land.^{However,at a later date the suit was not pressed} and this^{fact is strengthening the plaintiffspossession overthe} suit land

The trial^{Court after due trial heldthat non filing of suit for} possession by^{the defendants will not affect their title over the}

4

NTR,J sA_119_2020

subject r)rop,-irty and the evidence of PW-2, DW-1 and pahaniesrExs:A-9 to A-'12lExs:B-3 to B-8 are estalllishinly the fact that the p aintrff is not in possession more than 12 years adverse to the intr:resls of the defendant No.1, thus the possessory tifle cannot be granted. ln the absence of evidence of pos;session, perpetual injunction has been declined.

Aggrievr-'d thereby the plaintiff filed A.S.No.. 4 of 2019 and the appel,ate Court on re-appraisal of the mate rial on record observed thal in spite of assertion the pW-.I failec to file passbook and title deeds and placed pahanies/E:xs:A-Il to A-g are reflecting tlre name plaintiffs father. The paharries/Exs:A-9 to A-12 tor tl e years 2001-2007 are in the name of defendant No.1 as pattedar anrJ possessor. Further Kasra pahani/t:x.A-.1 is in the name of w fe cf Pedda Venkata Narsaiah (Lalithamma). ,As such the title cli:rimed by the plaintiff over the subject lirnd cannot be accepted. Fudher observed that the previous suit I S.No..l45 of 1992, all lhesr: claims were placed and conclud,td in Second Appeal No 1125 of 2000. Thus making self same ;laim rs hit by res judicatit. However, by observing that the essen,:ial element of uninterrupk>d oossession adverse to the interests ,tf the plaintiff has not been established and indeed by the documerrts are

NTR,J sA^149..2020

5

I

proving possession of^{defendant No.1 confirmedthe findings} recorded by the trial^Court-

Learned counsel^{for the appellantwould plead that the} Courts below failed^{to properly appreciate the materials on record} and erred in dismissing^{the suit by observing that the suit is hit by} res^{judicata.The Courts belowfailed to observe that the suit} even without title^{when the plaintiffis in possession of the} property the same should^{have been secured by granting} injunction. The^{Courts below ought to have observed that earlier} suit is not an^{impediment to file suit for declaration of title and} perpetual injunction seeking^{precipitation of rights of the plaintiff'} 7. I have^{perused the materials on record'}

The^{plaintiff filed the suit seeking declarationof title on the} ground of adverse^{possession' Admittedly earlier suit i e'} O.S.No.147 of^{1992 was filed for injunclionand the defendant} No.1 through^{counter claim soughtfor declaration of title undera} Will and the^{suit for perpetual injunction against the defendant} was dismissed^{by allowing the defendantNo'1's counterclaim'} The successive^{contests againstthe judgment in counter claimby} way of the first^{and second appealswere concludedin negative'} . !hus, the title of the^{defendanthas been determined'The plaintiff}

6

NTR,J sA 149_2020

in the pre:sent suit set up adverse possession frorr the date of the decree irr counter claim of the defendant No.1 ilnd consequent permane rt in. unction.

Be that as it may, the claim of adverse pcssession would sustain vrhen a person not being legal owner cf the property acquires )wnrlrship rights by openly, exclusively and cortinuously possessirrg the property for the statutory period. The evidence placed lly the plaintiff, particularly the documernts i.e. pahaniesrExs:A-2 to A-8 and Exs:A-9 to A_12lExs:B_3 to B_g are disclosing the, name of the defendant No.1 as pattedar and possessor of the subject land. Therefore coniinuous; hostile possession of the praintiff against the defendants 1 and 2 is failing short. Further non filing ofthe pattedar pass book and tite deeds as claimed by the plaintiff is strengthening the defr:ndants, possessio I as reflected in the pahanies. The sublect land being open land, placing reliance on entries in the nrvenue record brought or to record by the praintiff himself in juxtapositior of serf serving claim is; perfecfly justified. This being the factual position, the inevitarle r;oncrusion shail be that the praintiff had faired to establish n raterial ingredients qualifying the statutory requirement for grant c f adverse possession. ln the circumstzrnces, as the

NTR,J sA 149²⁰²⁰

7

plaintiffs claim is relied^{on post decretal adverse possession'the} observation of^{the appellateCou( that the claim of title by the} plaintiff is hit by res iudicata^{though not sustainable' this would} not better the^{plaintiffls position,as the evidenceis failingon} essentials^{of adversepossession' Therefore' it shall be held that} the Courts^{below had consideredthe merits on proper} perspective in^{passing the judgments'}

1 O. ln effect,^{the conclusionsrecordedin the impugned} judgment by the appellate^{Court in the decree and iudgment} daled26.02.2020inA.S.No.14of2019passedbythePrincipal District Judge,^{Nalgonda confirmingthe decree and judgment} dated 05.'l 1.2018^{in O.S.No.300of 2008 on the file of the Junior} Civil Judge,^{Nalgonda, deserves affirmationand consequently'} the Second^{Appeal is liable to be and is accordingly' dismissed'} There shall^{be no order as to costs'}

As a sequel,^{pending miscellaneous petitions if any'stands}

closed.

Sd/- B.^SATY AVATHI DEPUTY^REG ISTRAR

,/TRUE^COPY//

SECTION^OFFICER

To, lThePrincipalDistrictJudge,Nalgonda(withrecords,ifany) i. i'n"^{Lrnioi civilJudge' Naloonda} '. o;;;C ," sriV V Ramanal Advocate tof-u'cl' ; il ;;^{i; s;i K V sudhakar'AdvocatetoPUCl} 5. Two^{CD CoPies}

HtcH cot,tRl'

DATED:23101t2025

JUDGMEN-I- + DECREE

SA.No.149 of 2020

( 2 DRAFTS )

o
( gTH€g 74
<br>C
lllO io
ica O1APfr M
-+
i/
r+ ft,-

DISMISSINGi THE APPEAL

IN THE HIGH^{COURT FOR THE STATEOF TELANGANA AT HYDERABAD}

THURSDAY,^{THE TWENTY THIRDDAY OF JANUARY} TWO THOUSAND^{AND TWENTYFIVE}

PRESENT

THE HONOURABLE^{SRI JUSTICE N'TUKARAMJI}

SECOND AP^{PEAL NOi 149 oF 2020}

Between:

Vattipalli Muralaiah,^{S/o Narahari' Aged about 92 vears' Occ Agriculture&} ' i;;;'di'il,'trru pri'p;r,liiii,viirlg;-"Ni''""'sode Nilanodl'^{Nalsonda District} (Died) Per LRs 2^{to 6}

...Plaintiff^{/ Appellant/ Appellant}

Vattipalli^{Lakshmamma,Wo VMurlaiah'.Aoed about 73 Vears'Occ} Houiehold, R/o^{H.'iio:lli""iuriparupuii'-Munrigodu Mandal'Pulipalpula'} Nalgonda-508244

Vattipalli^{SatyanarayanaSharma' S/o V MuralidharSharma' Aged about 53} vears. occ nsricurt;;l^{Hif"Filtfti,'c-alS'i-sJlnrthArcade, New v r} bolonY, Nalgonda-50800¹

G.Aniali Devi,^{Wo. GPrabhakar Sharma'Aged about5-6 year:t Occ} Hous'ewife, R/o^{48 nIi,ii i[5g]i:"ir'6'i'i'-ioto6' (Faroor)' RarisaReddv-}

50151 '1

Penna^{Sharada, Wo Penna Mohan' Aged about 50 yeqlsrggcHousewife'} R/o. H.No 6-2-7tstiNblS"'vit'ragai^{c5tony' Nalgonda-S08001}

Gadebatla^{Hemalatha, Wo'Gade-batla} ^Shankarashasthry'^{Aged about40} vears. occ^{uor."*ii;, il;'l H-"il;):ii'cnoutuppatMand-al'Lingoji Gudem'} irlalgonda-5082⁵²

I^{Appellants Nos.2 to 6 are brought on r99o1! as per LRs of the deceased} sole Appellant^{u,o" b"oJ't'o"to""'-#i;0i-05 zoza iri t'n uo t of 2024 |} AND

'1 . Singam Pedaiah,^{(Since died throughhis LRs 2 to 8)}

L Sinqam F;ii#i,p;;^Yadaiah, niri;s;,^S/o M,;;;il;^Peddaiah' rvr'"na'i' Agtl lQg'i Nargonda^{50 years} District^{Occ Agriculture' R/o}

Sinqam Srisailam,^{S/o Peddaiah' Ageda.bout45 vears' Occ' Agriculture Rio} MaXoat' t'tatsonda^District

J' E;iip;ifi;i; Vrri,s":' t J ";;;;;'

Sinqam^{Buggamma, Wo' Late Peddaiah' Aged ahout 76 vears' Occ'} Asriculture.^{nlo pur''pli'l"piiViri'"g;Mlj;i'gi'ne Mandal' Nalsonda District}

S.GundeboinaYadamma,Wo..Maraiah,Ag^e5gyears,occ.Household, Goutar.m^{Post, Kangal MandalNalgonoa}

Somanaboina^{Andalu, Wo Ramachandraiah' Aoed about56 years' Occ'} House hold,^{R/o. B;;1;;;;'vEri"ijGVirr'se'NiiietpatlvMahdal' Nalsonda} District

7 . Mannebc'na Siathar ye a rs, o c c n oi; HII: p,J 3:i,?#tr #,,& j,[?T: i1?

8 fl | "#j ,33, o, H,Tl".l,f i,.:H ili,T,i; Hi? y,T!i m, *,",, 6:IXI I ;S,i?;,o ^A:ft "" Asricu,ture,

...Defendants / Respo ndents; / Respondents

Appeal (/n Jer llectt( Judgn,ent ard Decree dated 26.02.2020 mad., ir ^. i: l:t;tff::T:,;,:" ::ffi ;;:'; l l:':,i:J:"rerred asa nst'n" "0'll#'il'J' :::::.:::'; 05-11-2018 on the file of the c,urt of the Junior civil Judge, at Nalgoncra.

This appea corring on for hearing and upon perusing the grounds of appeal, the Judgment and Decree of the Lower Court ana tn materjar papr:rs in the case and upon hearing the;rrguments of Sri V v nra"n., il:r::::,:'^{L"' nu'Jv'n' Representns',,} ^',1'^{lTff:: ::::#i::1:}

This Court doth Orc er and decree as follows:-

That the Serc rnd r\ppeal be and hereby is dismissed; and

That there shall bt: no order as to costs in this appeal;

//TRUE COPYII

e?Hi,?v',fJJAyAlH

To,

1 The Principal I istrrc:t Judge, Nalgonda

The Junior Civi Judge, Nalgonda

Two CD Copies

,SECTION OFFICER

VA

HIGH COtjRT'

DATED:2310112025

DECREE

SA.No.149 ol 2020

DISMISSING THE APPEAL

')
{lv
1

Procedural history

How this case reached the court

AI extract

Order under challenge
Judgment and decree dated 26.02.2020 in A.S.No.14 of 2019 passed by the Principal District Judge, Nalgonda, confirming the decree and judgment dated 05.11.2018 in O.S.No.300 of 2008 passed by the Junior Civil Judge, Nalgonda (suit dismissed; findings confirmed).¶39
Principal District Judge, Nalgonda · 26.02.2020
Prior proceeding
Appellants/plaintiff filed suit O.S.No.300 of 2008 asserting title and exclusive possession over agricultural land admeasuring Ac.04.17 guntas in Sy.No.513 situated at Pulipalupula village, Munugode mandal, Nalgonda District ('the subject land').¶40
Prior proceeding
Claim that title was perfected by adverse possession since 13.08.1996; suit for declaration of title and perpetual injunction against the defendants.¶40
Prior proceeding
Earlier suit O.S.No.147 of 1992 (permanent injunction, along with Kambampati Venkataiah): defendant No.1 set up ownership basing on a Will Deed of 1962 executed by Lilithamma, wife of Pedda Venkata Narsaiah, and filed a counterclaim for declaration of title and possession; the trial court dismissed the plaintiff's suit for permanent injunction, allowed the counterclaim and declared the defendant's title over the subject land.¶46
Prior proceeding
That judgment was unsuccessfully challenged in A.S.No.62 of 1996, and the subsequent second appeal met the same fate, being decided on 13.06.2001.¶46
Prior proceeding
Defendant No.1 had earlier filed suit O.S.No.335 of 2006 seeking perpetual injunction claiming his possession over the suit land was disturbed; at a later date the suit was not pressed.¶47
Prior proceeding
Trial Court in O.S.No.300 of 2008 held that non-filing of a suit for possession by the defendants will not affect their title; evidence of PW-2, DW-1 and pahanies (Exs.A-9 to A-12, Exs.B-3 to B-8) established the plaintiff was not in possession for more than 12 years adverse to defendant No.1, so possessory title could not be granted and perpetual injunction was declined.¶51
Prior proceeding
First appellate court (A.S.No.14 of 2019) on re-appraisal: plaintiff failed to file passbook and title deeds; pahanies Exs.A-9 to A-12 for the years 2001-2007 stand in the name of defendant No.1 as pattedar and possessor; Kasra pahani Ex.A-1 is in the name of the wife of Pedda Venkata Narsaiah (Lalithamma); title claimed by the plaintiff over the subject land cannot be accepted.¶52
Prior proceeding
First appellate court further observed that the self-same claims were placed and concluded in the earlier round (Second Appeal No 1125 of 2000), making the present claim hit by res judicata, and that the essential element of uninterrupted adverse possession had not been established.¶52