LEKSHMANAN Vs. GOVINDAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The plaintiffs are the appellants. The suit was for a declaration of the plaintiffs' title and for recovery of possession of the property. They alleged that the plaint property belonged to their family and that the 3rd defendant's father was in possession of the same as a lessee of the family. On account of the disputes between the father of the 3rd defendant on the one hand and defendants 1, 2 and 4 on the other regarding the possession of the property, the Sub-Divisional Magistrate, Trivandrum, attached the property and put it in the possession of a Receiver under S.145 of the Criminal Procedure Code. The Magistrate, without deciding the question of possession, referred the parties to a civil suit for the adjudication of their rights. The 3rd defendant thereupon filed O. S. No. 89 of 1123 before the Principal Munsiff's Court of Trivandrum. That suit was subsequently compromised between the parties The case of the plaintiffs was that the compromise was not binding on them and that they were entitled to the possession of the property from the Receive with the profits collected by him.

(2.) The suit was resisted by the 1st defendant. He died during the pendency of the suit and defendants 6 to 9 are his legal representatives. The 6th defendant contended that the lease set up by the plaintiff was false, that she was in possession of the property in her own right from 1101, that she had perfected her title to the property by adverse possession and that she was entitled to get the property from the Receiver with the profits collected by him.

(3.) The Trial Court held that the plaintiffs had a subsisting title to the property and negatived the contention of the 6th defendant that she had prescribed a title to the property by adverse possession. The plaintiffs were, therefore, allowed to recover possession of the plaint property from the Receiver with the profits collected by him. Defendants 6 to 9 filed an appeal before the District Court of Trivandrum and the court came to the conclusion that the plaintiffs had no subsisting title, as they had not established their possession within twelve years before the date of suit.