KRISHNANKUTTY NAIR Vs. SUBRAMANIAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Plaintiff is the appellant. The suit is for recovery of possession of the suit property on the strength of his title. The Munsiff dismissed the suit holding that the oral assignment relied on by the plaintiff is not capable of transferring any valid title to him This has been confirmed by the District Judge.

(2.) The Munsiff held that the oral assignment of the property pleaded by the plaintiff for a consideration of Rs. 100/- hardly constitutes a valid transaction and it is incapable of transferring any valid title to him. It was also held that the defendant has no consistent case of possession and at any rate his evidence is totally unacceptable. Munsiff accepted the case of the plaintiff that the defendant trespassed into the property in October 1975. Counsel for the plaintiff 'submitted that the Munsiff having held so ought to have decreed the suit at least on the basis of the possessory title of the plaintiff.

(3.) The question to be considered is whether ia a case where a plaintiff sets up proprietary title and having failed to prove it, can be advance a case on the strength of his possessory title. The Munsiff on a consideration of the evidence held that the defendant has no consistent case of possession and bis evidence is opposed to his very pleadings. The plea of adverse possession set up by the defendant was held not established. In view of the finding by the Trial Court that defendant is in possession of the property only from October 1975 onwards and that be has trespassed upon the property the only inference possible is that the plaintiff has established bis possessory title. Payment of revenue by the plaintiff as evidenced by Ext. A2 lends considerable strength to the case of the plaintiff regarding his possession of the property. As the suit was filed in 1976 closely after the trespass plea of adverse possession is well nigh impossible.