S N ANANTHACHARI Vs. C RAJAGOPALAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) 1. The defendant in the suit in O.S.No.295 of 1996 on the file of the Court of District Munsif, Valangaiman is the appellant herein. This Civil Miscellaneous Appeal has been filed against the judgment and decree dated 17.7.1998 made in A.S.No.37 of 1997 by the Court of Subordinate Judge, Kumbakonam thereby remanding the case to the Court of District Munsif, Valangaiman, which passed the judgment and decree dated 2.1.1997 in O.S.No.295 of 1996. ]

(2.) THE respondents 1 and 2 herein and one Balakrishnan filed the suit in O.S.No.295 of 1996 on the file of the Court of District Munsif, Valangaiman in their capacity as Trustees of a Private Trust called Andi Krishnasamy Iyer Private Trust against the appellant herein for delivery of possession of the suit property and for past and future rents. THE suit property is a vacant site measuring about 35? x 41? located in Ward No.4 of Kumbakonam town.

(3.) THE trial Court, while dealing with the second issue framed, whether the defendant has perfected his title by adverse possession, observed that the defendant has deposed in his evidence that he is in possession of the suit property to the knowledge of the plaintiffs; that for ever the statutory period for over 12 years, he had been in possession and enjoyment of the suit property without any let or hindrance; that eventhough no documentary proof had been produced on the part of the defendant for having been in possession of the suit property for over the statutory period, his possession has no been denied by the plaintiffs and what the plaintiffs have come forward to say is that the defendant is a tenant and in such capacity only he is in possession and enjoyment of the suit property; that moreover, the plaintiffs have admitted that the defendant is in possession and enjoyment of the property from 1979 and P.W.1, one of the plaintiffs to the suit, had admitted in his evidence that in the year 1973 itself, part of the suit property had been entrusted with the defendant and hence it is established that from 1973 onwards for 17 long years, the defendant is in physical possession of the suit properties without any interruption; that when the allegation of the plaintiffs that the defendant is in possession and enjoyment of the suit property only as a tenant of the plaintiffs has not been established, it is clear that the defendant has perfected his title by adverse possession and thus the trial Court answered this issue also in favour of the defendant.