this Court held as under: - “4. This argument of the plaintiff was rejected by the Trial Court and the same was upheld by the First Appellate Court as well as by the Second Appellate Court on the reasoning that after the death of Sami Vaidyar, his son Sukumaran succeeded in the property in year 1942 itself. Thereafter, Sukumaran and later the children succeeding Sukumaran had the right over the 4 2023 SCC OnLine SC 1078 16property which undisputedly remained in their possession. Section 14 sub-Section (1) had no application in this case. The essential ingredient of Section 14 sub-Section (1) is possession over the property. Admittedly the plaintiff was never in possession of the property. The possession was always that of the defendant and therefore Section 14 sub- Section (1) would not be applicable. In Ram Vishal (dead) by lrs. v. Jagan Nath. reported in (2004) 9 SCC 302 the position of possession being a pre-requisite to sustain a claim under sub- section (1) of Section 14 of the