R VENKATAPATHY NAIDU ALIAS THAMBU Vs. DEVARAJ AIYER

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The respondent filed the suit for declaration and injunction claiming that he had perfected his title to the suit property by adverse possession from 1955. Both the Courts held in his favour.

(2.) One important physical feature that must be noted for deciding, this case is the location of the superstructure and the extent of the vacant land in the suit property. The Advocate Commissioner filed a report describing the suit property as ABCD In the south-western corner there is the house bearing door No. 5/12 About 29 feet from the house on the eastern side is clean and the Advocate Commissioner has noted that it appears to be used by the persons, who were living in the house. Whereas all over the vacant site "Veil" thorns were spread. The Advocate Commissioner has noted the existence of an old latrine in the north- western corner which is in disuse and is unreasonable because of the thorny undergrowth. On the north-western corner there are remnants of an old compound wall. On the eastern side also, there were traces of the old compound wall. The Advocate Commissioner has noted that it is almost impossible to go across the property from one end to another, due to the existence of thorns. Though this is a second appeal, the Commissioners Report regarding the physical features has -a bearing on the decision.

(3.) The fact that there was a Ginning Factory in the suit property is not really in dispute It is also admitted that the respondent occupied the superstructure after it was vacated by the previous owner. According to the respondent, his occupation was adverse to the true owner whereas according to the appellants, it was by permission.