GOPATHY Vs. SESHACHALU NAIDU

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE question for consideration in this appeal is as to whether the plaintiffs can be held to have lost their title by reason of ouster by the second defendant.

(2.) LEARNED single Judge has held that Meenakshi and jayalakshmi were given their share in the income from the suit properties till jayalakshmi died in the year 1965. LEARNED single Judge has also referred to the evidence adduced by the plaintiffs. P. W. 1, in the course of cross-examination, has stated that Meenakshi and Jayalakshmi were given their share in the income from the suit properties. LEARNED single Judge has also referred to Ex. A-16 written by the first defendant, in which it is stated that jayalakshmi obtained her share in the income from the suit properties. Accordingly, after referring to the provisions contained in Rule 2262 of French code Civil as applicable to Pondicherry , learned single Judge has held that the plaintiffs have not lost their right to the suit properties and that the defendants have failed to prove that they perfected their title by adverse possession.

(3.) IN the instant case, as already pointed out, learned single Judge has recorded a finding of fact that Jayalakshmi received her share in the income from the suit properties till she died in the year 1965. Therefore, even the establishment of the rice mill in the year 1956 cannot be construed as the starting point of limitation. At the most, in the instant case, when the defendants 1 and 2 and their children divided the suit properties among themselves to the complete exclusion of the plaintiffs, in the year 1970, the said Act, if it has been done to the knowledge of the plaintiffs can be construed as the starting point of limitation.