SWAMINATHAN AMBALAM Vs. P K NAGARAJA PILLAI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE defendant is the appellant. The suit is for a declaration of the plaintiff's title to the suit property and for possession. The suit property originally belonged to ramalingam Pillai and his wife Pattammal. They mortgaged the same to Lakshmi banking Corporation (P.)Ltd. The mortgagee represented by voluntary liquidator sri Sundaresa Iyer filed O. S. 106 of 1957 on the file of the District Munsif, pudukottai on the said mortgage and obtained a decree. In execution of the said decree he purchased the property and took delivery on 9th July 1959. The defendant was in occupation of the shed covered by asbestos at that time as a licensee and when informed about the purchase, he vacated and gave possession to the auction purchaser. Delivery was made with reference to the boundaries and the defendant has signed the delivery receipt. After delivery the liquidator died and Sri A. R. Krishnamurthi Iyer, Advocate, was appointed liquidator in his place. While he has in possession of the property on 17-1-1961, he sold the property to the plaintiff, he having sold the bricks and stones and the asbestos sheets to the plaintiff a few days before the sale. Taking advantage of the plaintiff's absence from Pudukottai the case of the plaintiff is that the defendant trespassed into the suit property and occupied a room and refused to vacate the same without any manner of right, title or interests in any portion of the property and when he was asked to vacate he threatened to cut the fruit bearing trees and the present suit is filed for declaration of the plaintiff's title and for possession.

(2.) THE defendant denied the trespass and contended that he was in open, continuous possession of the property for over 16 years, that he has perfected his title by adverse possession, that he did not sign the delivery receipt, that the plaintiff has not acquired title to the suit property, that neither the plaintiff nor his predecessors-in-title were in possession of the suit property within twelve years prior to the suit, that the property never vested in the liquidator A. R. Krishnamurthi Iyer and that the sale in favor of the plaintiff is invalid.

(3.) THE trial court framed five issues and on 7-6-1962 decreed the suit as prayed for.