P K GEORGE Vs. ERNAKULAM MUNICIPALITY

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The second appeal is by the plaintiff in a suit for recovery of possession of property which has been dismissed concurrently by both the courts below.

(2.) It would appear that the disputed property on which the plaintiff was interested to the extent of one half was surrendered in whole by the plaintiffs brother who was the other cosharer to the defendant Municipality for purpose of construction of a road. The deed of surrender is Ext. I of 1116 but the actual physical surrender was long earlier as evidenced by Ext. IV notice of 1114 which itself refers to an anterior transfer of possession by the brother to the Municipality. Now if Ext. IV date is taken to be the date when the Municipality got physical possession, this suit filed in 1952 more than 12 years later is out of time. Particularly as plaintiff concedes that he is and has been entirely out of any portion of the property.

(3.) Learned counsel for the plaintiff said that the period should be reckoned only from the date of Ext. 1 registered document under which alone there was a legal surrender. But for the purpose of limitation and adverse possession it is the physical surrender that has to be looked to.