PAPPAMMAL DIED Vs. VALIAMMAI DIED

JUDGEMENT

(1.) PLAINTIFF who filed O.S. No. 256 of 1966, on the file of the District Munsif s Court, Karur, died during the pendency of the suit, and plaintiffs 2 to 5 were impleaded as additional plaintiffs. Of them, after the filing of this second appeal, plaintiffs 2 and 3 died and appellants 5 to 7 herein have been impleaded.

(2.) THE suit was one for declaration of title and recovery of possession of C Schedule property, mentioned in the plaint. A plan is also appended.

(3.) IN the written statement filed by the defendant, he contended that the plaintiff had no title over A Schedule property. He also denied the alleged mediation in 1959. INsofar as the notice issued in 1959, he did not answer the same, but said that he does not remember to have sent any reply to the notice dated 1.10.1959. He also denied the rental arrangement. IN paragraphs 7 and 10 of the written statement, he said that he had been and continues to be in possession of the entire A Schedule, long before 1949 and he has perfected his right, title and interest and possession to the suit property by adverse possession and prescription. He further said that the plaintiff is not entitled to recovery of possession.