ARUNACHALAM ALIAS ANNAMALAI Vs. SUBBULAKSHMI AMMAL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS appeal is focussed as against the judgment and decree passed in O.S.No.566 of 1991 dated 11.11.1994 on the file of the Principal Subordinate Judge, Dindigul.

(2.) THE parties, for convenience sake, are referred to hereunder according to their litigative status before the trial Court.

(3.) PER contra, denying and disputing, challenging and impugning the averments, the second defendant filed the written statement which was adopted by the defendants 1 and 3, with the averments inter alia thus: The defendants are not the trespassers in the suit property and the said Muthusamy Pillai acquired prescriptive title over it even during the life time of Ramasamy Pillai. In the reply notice dated 16.09.1977 itself, Muthusamy Pillai set out the facts that already the relationship of Principal and the Agent between Ramasamy Pillai and Muthusamy Pillai, came to an end by 1963 itself by settling the accounts. In consideration of the honest service and the work rendered by Muthusamy Pillai as agent towards Ramasamy Pillai, the latter fixed the total remuneration due to Muthusamy Pillai in a sum of Rs.8,500/- (Rupees Eight Thousand and Five Hundred only) at the rate of Rs.100/- per mensum during the relevant period of agency and instead of paying the said amount of Rs.8,500/- in cash to Muthusamy Pillai, the suit property was allowed to be in the occupation of Muthusamy Pillai and his family in their own right as owners and the fact remains that eversince 1950, they were in possession and enjoyment and from the year 1963 onwards, their possession got changed as the one on their own right. Muthusamy Pillai also acquired title by adverse possession by virtue of his continuance, open, hostile and uninterrupted enjoyment of the suit property for over the period of limitation.