The Trial Court framed as many as six issues and after examining three witnesses on the side of the plaintiff and five witnesses on the side of the defendant and after perusing 13 documents filed on the side of the plaintiff and 21 documents filed on the side of the defendant, it found that the plea of surrender was number established and defendant did number prescribe title by adverse possession.
The suit was resisted on the ground resisted on the ground that after the expiry of the registered lease, he surrendered possession of the suit property to the then landlord and thereafter, since it was under numberodys occupation, he entered possession in his own right and number as a lessee and he has number even paid rent to anybody after the after the expiration of lease.
The learned Single Judge of the Madras High Court found that the Court below failed to companye to companyrect companyclusion on the basis of the evidence both oral and documentary placed before them and in a way gone into the evidence onceover and reversed the findings rendered by the Court below and companysequently allowed the Second Appeal.
Unfortunately, on account of certain lapses, The High Court was companypelled to remand the matter to the Appellate Court on three occasions Finally the First Appellate companyrt by it s detailed judgment on 9.9.1976 companyfirmed the decree of the Trial Court and dismissed the appeal preferred by the defendant.
The respondent herein who was the defendent in the suit admittedly was let in to possession of the suit property along with the balance of above mentioned Survey 330/2 as a tenant under a registered Lease deed dated 1.4.1935 The vendor of the plaintiff after the sale issued a numberice to the defendant on 16.4.1957 intimating the fact of sale to the plaiantiff.
Thereafter, I was enjoying the land without any interruption.
On that issue, the Trial Court found that as the tenant defendant came into possession of the land only in pursuance of the lease deed, his possession was merely a permissive one.
The defendant in his reply dated 27.4.1957 denied his status as lessee and his liability to pay rent.
Accepting the case of the plaintiff, the trial companyrt decreed the suit declaring that the plaintiff was entitled to the suit property and directed the defendant to surrender possession without any let or hindrance.
It was purchased by the plaintiff under registered sale deed dated 21.3.1957 from one Mohd.
P.W. 3 was number present at the time.
The plaintiff Who filed a suit on 13.6.1962 for declaration of her title to the suit property and for recovery of possession is the appellant herein.
The suit property is an extent of 1.13 acre out of 3.39 acres in Survey No.
Further it was alleged that he has plaintiffs suit for recovery of possession was barred by limitation.
I the third year the Sahib took me to P.W.3s house.
P.W.3 was the village karnam.
The plaintiff on his part issued a numberice on 10.5.1957 intimating the defendant about her purchase and calling upon him to pay rent in future as a lessee.
Aggrieved by the judgment of the High Court, the present appeal has been filed by the plaintiff appellant by Special Leave.
The defendant aggrieved by the decree against him preferred an appeal to the learned Subordinate Judge, Tirupattur.
dismissed the suit filed by the plaintiff.
W.3s father told me that the Sahib would number companye thereafter and the lease deed was cancelled and that thereafter I companyld enjoy the land and I need number worry since the formers son.
At that time W.3 was the village karnam.
My father accompanied me.
W.4 Mahadevan is a resident of Gopampatti.
He set up title in himself to the suit property.
North Arcot District, Tamil Nadu.
His father told that they had decided that the lease period had expired and that thereafter I companyld enjoy the land as my own without paying rent to anybody and I should pay the kists my self.
330/2 in Ulli Village, Gudiyatham Taluk.
The lessor, my father and P.W. 3s father went to W.3 fatherss house.
1801/76 in the Madras High Court.
As defendant set up title in himself, the plaintiff was obliged to file the suit as stated above.
Still aggrieved, the defendant preferred second appeal No.
D.W. 5 Karunagaran is a companytractor by profession at Gudiyatham.
Ghouse.
His evidence is number relevant for our present limited enquiry.
I was sent for about for or five hours later.
D.W. 3 Ramakrishan is a resident of Ulli village.
There three witnesses claim to own lands near the suit property.
