HABEEBA AMMAL Vs. BALAJI PANDITHAR CHATRAM

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The only point that has to be decided in this second appeal is, whether the defendants/appellants have prescribed for title by adverse possession the title having been found in favour of the respondent/plaintiff by both the Courts below. The substantial questions of law framed for decision in the second appeal are as follows:

(2.) The case of the plaintiff is as follows: The suit property is an extent of 2 cents out of 18 cents in S.No.264/2 in the suit village. As per the provisions of Act 30/63, the plaintiff was granted patta. While so, the first defendant committed trespass upon the suit property in January 1977. Though the trustee of the plaintiff/chatram called upon the first defendant to vacate the property, the first defendant continued to occupy the same. The plaintiff caused a notice to be issued to the second defendant on 18.1.1980, calling upon him to remove the superstructure put up in the suit property and also to pay Rs.1,800/- towards damages for use and occupation. The reply denied the ownership of the plaintiff. In these circumstances, the suit came to be filed for declaration and damages for use and occupation. While so, the fourth defendant claiming to have purchased the property on 21.3.1985 filed I.A.No.693/1985 for getting impleaded as a party and she was accordingly impleaded. The defendants were liable to pay damages at the rate of Rs.10/- from 1.8.1977 till 1.7.1980 for 35 months in all Rs.350/-.

(3.) The first defendant filed a written statement, as follows: