BOMBALIKUPPAM MURUGAPPA NAICKER Vs. PADMANABHA MUDALIAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE plaintiff contended that the suit property was originally a blacksmith inam, which was resumed about 70 years ago and had been in possession of the plaintiff and his predecessors throughout the whole of that period. The defendant, who purchased the land in 1936, claimed that it was a blacksmith inam and that his vendor was the blacksmith entitled to this property. The first Court held that the plaintiff had not proved his case that he had title to the property; and it did not seem to think that the plaintiff's evidence with regard to possession was of very much value. It moreover held that as the plaintiff had already failed in a summary suit under Section 9 of the Specific Relief Act, he could not be given a decree on the basis of his possession; and it therefore dismissed the suit. At the same time, the Court did not consider that the defendant had proved that he had title to the property, but thought that immaterial in view of the fact that the plaintiff had failed to prove his title. In appeal, the learned Subordinate Judge, relying on Karuppannan Ambalam v. Sundararaja Iyer, I.L.R.(1899)Mad. 134, a decision of Patanjali Sastri, J., held that the fact that the plaintiff had failed to prove his original title did not prevent him from putting forward his title by virtue of long possession. He held that as the plaintiff had proved that he was in possession at least from 1929, he was entitled to a decree, the defendant having failed to prove that his vendor had title.

(2.) TWO contentions have been raised in second appeal. The first is that in view of the wording of Section 9 of the Specific Relief Act, the plaintiff could only succeed on the question of title and not on the question of possession. The second argument is that as the plaintiff chose to base his suit on title, he cannot be allowed to succeed merely because of his long possession.

(3.) PATANJALI Sastri, J., in Karuppannan Ambalam v. Sundararaja Aiyar, I.L.R.(1899)Mad. 134, referring to earlier cases, pointed out that it had never been held that in no circumstances could a plaintiff be given any relief on a possessory title if he had failed to establish the title set up by him in the plaint and that if the parties to the suit had let in evidence with regard to possession and the defendant had not been prejudiced by the finding with regard to possession, then the plaintiff could be given a decree on the basis of his long possession. As the learned Subordinate Judge has pointed out, the question of possession was very much in the forefront in the trial Court. An issue had been framed whether the plaintiff's suit was barred by limitation and by adverse possession; and there can be no doubt from the evidence let in that both the parties were attempting to prove that they or their predecessors had been in possession for twelve years or more prior to suit. It cannot therefore be said that the defendant has been in any way prejudiced by a finding that the plaintiff had proved his title by long possession. As the acquisition of title referred to in the plaint was seventy years ago, it could hardly be expected that the plaintiff would be able to adduce any evidence of value on that point. He asserted in his plaint that since the acquisition of title to the land by his predecessors seventy years ago, he and his predecessors had been in continuous possession of the land.