LINGAYYAN Vs. G PANDIYAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The unsuccessful defendant is the appellant. The respondent/plaintiff filed a suit for declaration and for recovery of possession.

(2.) The case of the respondent/plaintiff was that the suit property belonged originally to one Dakshina Murthy Naidu, he having purchased the same under four documents and he allowed the defendant and his father to be in possession of the property as a tenant as Dakshina Murthy Naidu was employed in Railways and was working in various places. The defendant and his father were paying kist receipts and rent regularly and the defendant and his father were allowed to enjoy the property as they happened to be the neighbouring land owners. After the death of Dakshina Murthy Naidu, his legal-heirs sold the property to the respondent/plaintiff under a registered sale deed, dated 17.06.1984 and the respondent/plaintiff after his purchase requested the appellant/defendant to vacate and hand over the possession and they claimed ownership over the property as if it is their ancestral property and Dakshina Murthy Naidu had no title over the same and Dakshina Murthy Naidu had no issues. The appellant/defendant also claimed adverse possession. Hence, the suit was filed for declaration of title and for recovery of possession.

(3.) The appellant/defendant contested the suit stating that the suit property was enjoyed by him and his predecessor in-title as owners for more than 50 years and Dakshina Murthy Naidu was not the owner of the property and he never claimed any ownership and the defendant and his father were not let into possession by Dakshina Murthy Naidu as a tenant and they have been paying kists in their individual rights as the owner of the property and they also perfected title by adverse possession.