RAJAMMAL AND ORS. Vs. PERUMALSWAMI AND ORS.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) In this appeal by Defendants 1 to 4 the principal question for consideration is whether the learned Subordinate Judge, who dismissed the appeal preferred by the Defendants, was justified in disallowing their plea of acquisition of title by adverse possession after having found that they must have been in possession of the suit property from about the year 1955 onwards and not in pursuance of any trespass subsequent to the filing of the suit as alleged by the Plaintiffs.

(2.) Plaintiffs 1 and 2 originally instituted the suit for bare injunction, but subsequently they amended the plaint and sought for reliefs of declaration of title as well as recovery of possession. Pending disposal of the suit, the second Plaintiff died and her legal representatives were brought on record as Plaintiffs 3 to 6. The case of the Plaintiffs was that the suit property had been purchased by the second Plaintiff under exhibit A -12, dated April 24, 1933. There was an othi on the suit property as evidenced by exhibit A -11 and that othi was subsequently discharged in terms of a compromise decree passed in Original Suit No. 13 of 1948 on the file of the Court of the District Munsif, Tirumangalam in proof of which exhibits A -13 to A -17 had been filed. According to the Plaintiffs, the fourth Appellant, his wife, the first Appellant, and their sons, the second and the third Appellants, without any mannor of right or title, interfered with their peaceful enjoyment of the suit property and ultimately dispossessed them by trespassing on the suit property.

(3.) In the defence raised in the suit, the title of the Plaintiffs to the suit property was not disputed. It was however, contended that the othi on the suit property was discharged by the fourth Appellant. It was there after contended that there was en agreement of sale in favour of the Appellants and it was in pursuance of that agreement, the Appellants had been let into possession and they were, therefore, entitled to invoke the doctrine of part performance and resists the suit for dispossession. The agreement of sale itself was alleged to have been lost in fire. The last of the contentions was that, in any event, the Appellants had been in possession of the property for well over the statutory period and had, therefore, acquired title by adverse possession.