GOPAL GOUNDER Vs. KOTHANDARAMA GOUNDER

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE defendants are the appellants. THE suit was filed by the respondent-plaintiff for a declaration of his title to an extent of 15 cents out of 42 cents in Survey Number 34/17 and for recovery of possession. THE plaintiff-s case was that the property was purchased by his father and that after his father-s death, he became entitled to the same. He further contended that the defendants asked for permission to put up some thatched houses in the site agreeing to vacate and deliver possession as and when demanded by the plaintiff and on that understanding the site was given to the defendants and they have put up thatched houses. THE plaintiff demanded the defendants to vacate and deliver possession of the site and finding that the defendants are not complying with the request, he has filed the present suit.

(2.) THE defendants did not dispute the original title vested in the father of the plaintiff, or after his death, on the plaintiff. But they pleaded adverse possession. THE defendants also pleaded that they are entitled to the benefits of the Tamil Nadu Occupants of Kudiyiruppu (Conferment of Ownership) Act, 1971, hereinafter referred to as the Kudiyiruppu Act and that this suit for possession is accordingly barred under section 23 of the Kudiyiruppu Act.

(3.) THE learned counsel for the appellants contended that even on the finding that the appellants- possession was permissive as licensees and on the admitted fact that they have put up constructions, they are entitled to the benefits of the Kudiyiruppu Act. He also contended that the finding of the Courts below that there is no evidence to show that the defendants are either agriculturists or agricultural labourers is contrary to the admission made by the plaintiff himself and the other recorded evidence produced in this case, and against the presumption raised under the Kudiyiruppu Act and that, therefore, that finding is also not binding in second appeal.