RAJAGOPALA GOUNDAR Vs. MARUTHAMUTHU ASARI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This second appeal arises out of a suit brought by the plaintiffs as trustees of the plaint mentioned temple in the village of South Therku Poyyur for the recovery of possession of a plot of land 71 cents in extent as belonging to the temple and also for the recovery of mesne profits. The plaintiffs case is that this land is a Blacksmith's service manyam land which originally belonged to the mirasidars of the village and was subsequently gifted by them to the temple. The suit land which is comprised in survey No. 83/2-X according to the old survey is included in the pattah, Ex. A which stood in the name of the temple and other prominent mirasidars of the village. The defendant and his ancestors have no doubt been in possession and enjoyment of this land for a pretty long time. A number of documents have been filed on the plaintiff's side which have been duly considered by the learned District Munsif who came to the conclusion that the temple is the real owner of the suit land and that the defendant's predecessor must have been let into possession of this land for the performance of the Blacksmith's service, and as such, his possession was permissive at the inception. Though there is no document to evidence the alleged gift in favour of the temple, there is, in my opinion, sufficient documentary evidence to indicate that the temple was dealing with this land as owner, though the enjoyment of it has been with the family of the defendant. The cist receipts, Ex. L series, clearly show that in respect of pattah No 380(Ex. A) the temple was paying the cist from the year 1899 to 1903.

(2.) The plea of the defendant that the temple had nothing to do with the suit land and had no sort of title to it is obviously untenable. The learned District Judge did not give a definite finding as to who is the owner of the suit land, though he made a reference to a number of documents bearing on this question in para. 6 of his judgment. The reasoning of the District Munsif is clear, and should, in my opinion, be accepted in coming to a conclusion on this question.

(3.) I therefore hold that the plaint temple is the owner of the suit land, which is styled as Blacksmith's manyam land and which must have been granted to a predecessor of the defendant for doing the Blacksmith's service to the temple and to the mirasidars of the village. There is no doubt that the possession of the defendant's ancestor was only permissive in its nature at the beginning. There was thus a relationship of landlord and tenant between the temple and the defendant, the condition for the enjoyment of the land being the rendering of some service to the temple. Both the lower Courts have practically treated the defendant's possession as adverse to the temple by reason of the fact that the enjoyment by defendant had been for over the statutory period without rendering any service. If in the beginning, possession was only permissive the burden of proving that at some later time it became adverse to the owner is clearly on the person who sets up a title by such adverse possession. On this question the principle of law has been laid down in two decisions relied upon by the learned advocate for the appellants, namely, Komargowda V/s. Bhimaji (1899) 23 Bom. 602 and Nandlal Sahu V/s. Tikait Srinivasa Kukum Sing Deo AIR 1922 Pat 541.