UPAKARATHUDAYAN Vs. INNASIMUTHU UDAYAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS is an action brought to recover an estate which was formerly in the possession of one Innasimuthu Udayan (a man of the same name as the appellant), who died many years ago. He had two sons-of these one was Jacob, distinguished as Jacob I. This Jacob had a son, Jacob II., who appears to have died in the sixties, and is said by the appellant to have adopted him and to have left a will in his favour. The other son of the original Innasimuthu was Rayer, who about 1820 was transported for some crime. He appears to have died some time in the sixties, but whether before or after Jacob II. is not shown. He left a widow, Avammal, who died in the year 1885. Savuri Animal, the late plaintiff in this action now represented by the respondents, was the daughter of Avammal, and claimed in some way (though in what way is not clear) through her mother. In the course of these proceedings it seems to have been admitted that the plaintiff had a title to maintain the action if she could get over the case made under the Statute of Limitations by the defendant, who is the present appellant.

(2.) THE question for decision is a question of fact, namely, Has the appellant shown possession of the estate in question during twelve years before November 2, 1892, the date when this action was commenced? The plaintiff herself in her plaint states that the appellant, after the death of Avammal in 1885, took possession of the property in question, and the appellant is sued as being in possession. The appellant's own statement is that he has been in possession from 1865 or 1870. It is not necessary to consider whether the mere fact of possession for seven years before suit throws on the plaintiff the burthen of showing when that possession began; for in the present case the admitted fact of possession is accompanied by a series of documents of the kind usually given to and received by the possessor of an estate, and bearing the appellant's name as the possessor of the estate, and that series of documents does not commence with the year 1885, but from dates covering the period in controversy; and it appears to their Lordships that this case might be decided on the short ground that the documentary evidence of possession, exactly similar in character to that which accompanies the admitted possession, goes back far behind the twelve years in question, that this throws on the plaintiff the burthen of rebutting the inference arising from the fact of possession accompanied by these documents, and that this burthen has not, in their Lordships' estimate of the conflicting evidence, been sustained by the plaintiff.

(3.) THE estate in question included holdings in the following five villages: