DODDIPATLA KAMESWARA RAO Vs. TARAMETLA SOMANNA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) (After setting out the facts and, on an appreciation of the evidence, oral and documentary, confirming the findings of the trial Judge on all other points, His Lodship continued):( Thelearned Advocate for the respondents contended that as the Committee was formed only in December 1939, there coiuld be no adverse possession as against the Committee, till it was formed and the President and Secretary thereof elected.Artcile 134-B, Limitation Act runs in the following terms:Description of suit.Period of Time from which periodlimitation.begins to run.By the Manager of a Hindu,12 years.The death, resignation Muhammadan or Buddist or removal of the religious or chartiable transferor. endowment to recover possession of immovable property comprised in the endowment which has been sold by a previous manager for a valueable consideration.

(2.) As the plaintiffs now claim title by adverse possession, they msut show that their possession was adverse to the Committee and that they were in uninterrupted and continuous possession for a period of 12 years. The Subordinate Judge accepted this contention and foiund on paras. 36 to 39 that as the Committee was not formed till Decembr 1939 the adverse possession did not at all start.

(3.) The learned Advocate for the respondents relied on -- Palaniyandi Malavarayan v. Vadamalai Vidayan, 2 Mad LW 723: (AIR 1916 Mad 1001) (A). The headnote sets out the legal position correctly and is in the following terms: