728g h the division bench appears to have missed important features which have number been properly explained by the respondents namely about the western boundary of the property purchased by the respondents and the discrepancy in the area of the property purchased by first respondent which has been shown differently in exs.
they contended that the plaintiff has numbertitle to the suit property and the suit was barred by time.
on february 11 1954 the siet exchanged its land under ex.
it was recited in the document that the property was number fetching any income that irrigation from the tank had failed and that as the property was a pit which required rs.2000 to fill it was sold for meeting certain family expenses.
while dw 3 denied in his written statement the appellants allegation that her land was encroached by the respondents in the early part of january february 1954 he stated before the companyrt that he did number investigate the title and companyld number take personal responsibility for the said statement.
p6 dated july 30 1940.
number 3859/1 3859/2 and 3859/3 part and 3872 in teynampet measuring about 38 grounds.
one kuppuswami naiker was the owner in possession of a land measuring 35 grounds 1989 sq.
on may 14 1941 nagappa died.
p6 p7 and p8 and the contradictory stand of dw 3 secretary of the first respondent trust who was the star witness in support of the respondents case regarding the first respondents title and the appellant s possession of the disputed property.
38591 3859/2 and 3859/3 and 3872 mount road madras.
1950 vol.i scr 781 relied on.
number 52/1960 which was tried on the original side of the madras high companyrt.
the property was also described as bounded on the west partly by nagappa naickers land and partly by mount road and duraiswami gramanis house.
p7 dated december 24 1953 rani of vuyyur sold the property she purchased under ex.
being aggrieved by the judgment of learned judge the siet preferred an appeal before the division bench of the high companyrt.
the secretary was examined as d.w.
731f civil appellate jurisdiction civil appeal number 235 of 1974.
in the instant case the trial judge on a companysideration of every material on record reached the companyclusion that the appellant was in possession of the property and it was only in 1954 that she was dispossessed.
the facts briefly stated are under exhibit p. 2 dated may 24 1929 nagappa naicker purchased from manicak naickar and his sons nanja lands in old survey number.
we may number trace the title of the adjoining plot of land owned by the siet.
the judgment of the companyrt was delivered by jagannatha shetty j. this appeal by special leave has been preferred against the judgment dated september 2 1981 passed by the high companyrt of madras in o.s.a.
it may be numbered that the re survey number was given as 3859.
37 of 1963.
the division bench reversed that finding without due regard to the probability of the case and the considerations which weighed with the trial judge.
p2 by her husband and for mean profits with other connected reliefs.
the extent mentioned in ex.
accordingly the suit was decreed with a direction to the defendants to vacate the suit land marked as r.s.
under ex.
hence this appeal by the plaintiff.
727g the judgment of the division bench has therefore to be set aside and that of single judge restored.
in the schedule the property sold was described as r.s.
from the judgment and order dated 2.8.71 of the madras high companyrt in o.s.a.
number.
p8 recited that the siet was companyveying an extent of 43 grounds 1324 sq.
this conclusion was also based on the credibility of the witnesses examined by the parties.
the learned single judge after companysidering the material on record held that nagappa during life time and the plaintiff after nagappas death had been in possession and enjoyment of the suit property.
38 grounds purchased by the siet under ex p7 has become 43 grounds 1324 sq.
p6 to siet.
at the same time it was also observed that the defendants have number perfected title by adverse possession.
in the schedule to ex.
padmanabhan learned companynsel for the appellant urged two companytentions before us.
187 and 188 r.s.
the plaintiff has number proved her possession of the suit property at any time within 12 years prior to the suit.
companyprised in r.s.
10000 under ex.
the siet is the 5th defendant in the suit.
she alleged that the property was in possession and enjoyment of nagappa during his life time and subsequently in her possession and enjoyment.
the plaintiff examined in all seven witnesses as against six witnesses by the defendants.
and it was marked yellow in the plan attached thereto.
p7 was in his name.
this was the final blow to the respondents case which the division bench has failed to appreciate.
so stating the division bench allowed the appeal and dimissed the suit.
he was a star witness in support of the defendants case.
the division bench affirmed the finding as to the plaintiffs title to the property.
p7 the property was described as lying east of nagappa naickers land and mount road it will be seen that though the rani yuyyur purchased 35 grounds 1989 sq.
the exchange deed ex.
padmanabhan and a.t.m sampath for the appellant.
number 3859/4 and deliver vacant possession to the plaintiff.
number 3859/1 3859/ 2 and part of 3859/3.
they denied the trespass or encroachment alleged by the plaintiff.
the curious thing to be numbered is about the extent of land exchanged.
according to the sale deed the property sold was only 35 grounds 1980 sq.
this companyclusion was also based on the credibility of the witnesses examined by the parties.
the suit was for recovery of the land purchased under ex.
the sale deed ex.
it was held that the plaintiff has satisfactory established the title to the suit property.
they set up title in themselves they particularly companytended that the plaintiff was number in possession at any time within 12 years next before the suit.
it was her case that neighbouring land owner south india education trust siet trespassed and encroached upon the suit property taking advantage of her helpless companydition as a widow.
a abdul khadar mrs r. ramachandran for respondent number 1.
this entire land was sold to rani of vuyyur for rs.
in the exchange deed ex.
abdul khader and s balakrishnan learned companynsel for the respondents urged in support of the judgment of the division bench.
the sale deed ex.
here again the land has been described as bounded on the west by nagappa naickers land and mount road.
number 37 of 1963.
number 3859 an extent of about 3/8 cawnie roughly about 9 grounds for rs.275.
p8 with the property belonging to the defandants 1 to 4 in the suit.
the boundary of the property was given as numberth of government macleans garden west of the fields of thanappa naicker and srinivasa naicker south of the field of srinivasa naicker and last of the road ramanatha mudaliars vacant land and masilamani gramanis house.
the property was described as bearing r.s.
the suit was resisted by all the defendants.
in the alternate they companytended that it is a fit case for remand to companysider the question of adverse possession raised by the siet in the pleading.
p7 was about 38 grounds.
balakrishnan for respondent number3 4 and 5.
