A plaintiff suing for possession of immovable property must prove not only title as against the defendant but also prove that he had been dispossessed of the same within 12 years immediately preceding the suit, and the onus is not upon the defendant to prove adverse possession for a period of 12 years.

RAMANUJAM, J.:- This appeal by the fifth defendant is directed against the decision of Kailasam, J., in C.S. No.52 of 1960, upholding the plaintiffs title to the suit lands and directing delivery of possession of the same by the defendants. The first respondent herein is the plaintiff in the suit, and her case was that her husband Nagappa Naicker had purchased the suit lands measuring about 9 grounds by a registered sale deed dated May 24, 1929 from one Manicka Naicker and his sons, that he was in possession and enjoyment of the same during his lifetime, that after his death on January 12, 1942 she as the executor appointed under his will dated May 14, 1941 and as a life-estate holder was in possession and enjoyment of the same till 1954 when the first defendant trespassed into the suit properties, demolished a fence existing on the land and occupied the same assorting title under a document of exchange dated 2-2-1954 executed by the fifth defendant, the Southern India Education Trust, Madras and that, therefore, she was constrained to file the suit to establish her title and for recovery of possession.

2. Defendants 1 to 4, who are respondents 2 to 5 herein, resisted the suit contending that they got 43 grounds and 1324 sq. ft. of land in exchange for their own land of 46 grounds in R.S. No.3799 in Teynampet from the fifth defendant, that they were put in possession of the entire lands they got in exchange by the fifth defendant, that the lands got in exchange included the suit lands, and that the plaintiff had not been in possession or enjoyment of the suit lands at any time within 12 years prior to the date of the suit. They specifically denied the allegations of trespass and demolition of the fence.

3. The fifth defendant, the appellant herein, who was added at a later stage, contended that the plaintiff had no title to the suit lands, that it was not true that the plaintiffs husband Nagappa Naicker purchased the same on May 24, 1929, that they had always been in the possession and enjoyment of the defendants and their predecessors-in-title; and that the plaintiff had never been in possession of the same within 12 years prior to the suit. It also denied the alleged trespass and the demolition of the fence by the first defendant.

4. On a consideration of the evidence, both oral and documentary, Kailasam, J., had held that the plaintiff has established her title to the suit lands and that the documents of title on which the defendants base their claim will not take in the suit lands. The learned Judge has referred to the sale deed, Ex.P.2 dated May 24, 1929 under which Nagappa Naicker purchased from Manicka Naicker and his sons an extent of 3/8th of a cawnie bearing old survey Nos.187 and 188, corresponding to R.S. No.3859, for Rs.275/- and has found that it related to the suit lands. According to the learned Judge the earlier documents of title on which the defendants based their claim. Exhibits, P.3, P.4 and P.5 had shown that their predecessors-in-title had purchased only an extent of 35 grounds and 1989 sq. ft. in survey Nos.3872, 3859/1, 3S59/2 and 3859/3, and as such their claim for an extent of 43 grounds and 1324 sq. ft. under the exchange deed Ex.P.8 dated 11-2-1954 could not be sustained. The learned Judge had also found that the plaintiff had been in possession of the suit lands within 12 years prior to the date of the filing of the suit, and that in fact there was trespass by defendants 1 to 4 in February, 1954. The finding given by Kailasam, J., both on the question of title and on the question of possession are being challenged in this appeal. Therefore the two points that arise for consideration in this appeal are: (1) whether the plaintiff had title to the suit lands and (2) whether she has been in possession of the same within 12 years of suit.

x x x x x x

5. Considering all these circumstances it is not possible to accept the contention put forward on behalf of the appellant that the defendants became e