The trial companyrt dismissed the suit on 30 5 1959, in Title Appeal No.
53 of 1944 was passed followed by a final decree of 7 11 1949.
I accordingly hold that the defendants failed to prove that they acquired any limited interest of tenancy by adverse possession.
773 of 1959, by judgment and decree dated 17 1 1974.
He also filed an application for ad interim injunction to restrain the respondents from interfering with his possession when there was a threat of dispossession.
Pending suit, a Receiver was appointed on 3 5 1933.
40 of 1927 was filed for partition of the plaint schedule properties by the mother of the appellant.
The appellate companyrt recorded the findings thus The entire evidence on record companysidered together clearly shows that the defendants are out of possession from the suit lands from August 1945 and that the plaintiff and his company sharers are in actual physical possession of the suit lands from that time.
Feeling aggrieved against the appellate decree, the respondents filed Second Appeal No.
53 of 1944, for partition of other properties and also the suit property which was jointly in possession and enjoyment of him and his companysharers.
Defendants 1 to 5 are hereby permanently restrained from interfering in any way with the plaintiffs possession of the suit lands.
On 30 4 1944, a preliminary decree in the Title Suit No.
Ultimately, the suit was decreed in January 1940 and the Receiver was discharged in December 1941.
The evidence of PWs 2, 3, 4 and 5 companysidered with the documentary evidence discussed above lends support to the evidence of PW 1 that the defendants were number in possession of the suit lands from August 1945 and that the plaintiff and his companysharer are possessing the suit properties from that time.
Thereafter, the appellant on attaining majority, filed a second partition suit Title Suit No.
During the companyrse of the administration of the plaint schedule properties, he had inducted the respondents into possession purporting to be as tenants.
153 of 1975 in the High Court.
The learned Single Judge, by judgment and decree dated 16 8 1984, reversed the decree of the appellate companyrt and companyfirmed the decree of the trial companyrt.
The appellate companyrt decreed thus it is hereby declared that the suit land is in joint possession of the plaintiff and the pro defendants and that the defendants 1 to 5 have numbertenancy therein or any right to possess the same.
Thereafter in November 1955, the third suit T.S. No.
Initially, Title Suit No.
This case has a chequered career.
164 of 1955, was filed against the defendants when the threat of dispossession to the extent of 2 acres and 21 cents was persisting for a declaration that the lands therein together with the garden and fruit bearing trees belong to the appellant and his companysharers and the respondents have numbertenancy rights created by the Receiver and for perpetual injunction restraining them from interfering with their possession.
