Adverse possession was established by the defendants through documents and oral evidence, leading to the dismissal of the plaintiff's appeal.

1. The plaintiffs in O.S.No.240 of 1983 on the file of the District Munsif, Tiruvarur, are the appellants in the second appeal. The suit was filed for recovery of possession of an extent of 8 cents out of 96 cents in R.S. No. 199/7 in Pattudaiyaviruppu Village, Aikudi Vattam, Kodavasal Taluk, Tiruvarur Munsif, on the following averments: The plaintiff is a public temple under the control of the Tamil Nadu H.R. & C.E. Department and it is represented by the trustee appointed by the Deputy Commissioner, Nagai, of the H.R. & C.E. Department. The suit property belongs to the plaintiff temple. The property is in Patta No.321 and R.S.No. 199/7 and was in the possession and enjoyment of the plaintiff temple. About 10 years prior to the suit, the first defendant entered into the suit property and started enjoying by raising dry crops. Inspite of several requests and demands made by the trustee, the first defendant did not give up the property. The plaintiff caused a notice to be issued on 6.6.1983 to the first defendant. Though he received it, he did not send any reply. The first defendant was liable to pay at the rate of Rs.3 per month. There was a tamarind tree also which would yield not less than Rs.25 per month. All these amounts the first defendant is liable to pay.

2. The first defendant/first respondent filed a written statement contending inter alia as follows:

The suit property and other properties of a total extent of 2.48 acres of nanja, punja and natham jari and another extent of 66 cents of punja in another area were originally owned and enjoyed by one Yagappa Pillai. While in a sound disposing state of mind he executed a registered Will on 4.4.1910 bequeathing all his properties in favour of his wife Mariammal and daughter Anthoniammal alias Kitheriammal to be enjoyed by them for their life and in case of issue to Anthoniammal the properties were to be taken by such issue and in case Anthoniammal were to die issueless, the properties were to be taken by the persons in charge of local Adaikkalamatha Shrine. Anthoniammal died issueless about 50 years prior to the filing of the suit and the properties were taken over by the Shrine and since then the entire properties were in the enjoyment of the said Shrine, which was vested with and controlled by the Parish Priest, St. Xavier Church, Pathur, Koradacherry. The old survey number for the property was R.S.No.227/V. The plaint did not mention about the source of title to the plaintiff, Adaikkalamatha Shrine had been in possession and enjoyment of the suit property and had prescribed for title by adverse possession and in the house originally occupied by Yagappa Pillai (198/17) the Headmaster of the said school was residing. The suit property was managed by one Dhiriam Pillai for nearly 25 years as a lessee of Rev.Fr. Anthony Palavarayar and the suit property is now in the possession of the Church, What apparently prompted the present trustee to file the suit is that in the sub division just prior to the filing of the suit by the Revenue Department, R.S.No. 199/7 was recorded as 96 cents. The suit against this defendant in his individual capacity was improper and legally unsustainable. Thereafter, the second defendant/second respondent was impleaded as a party. The second defendant also filed identical written statement and it is not necessary to repeat the same.

3. On the basis of the above pleadings, the learned District Munsif framed the necessary issues and on the oral and documentary evidence found that the plaintiff/appellant did not have title to the suit property, that the trespass alleged was not true and that in any event, the defendants had prescribed for tide by adverse possession. So holding by judgment and decree dated 20.9.1985 the learned District Munsif dismissed the suit. The appeal by the plaintiff in A.S.No.17 of 1986 was also dismissed by the learned Subordinate Judge, Nagapattinam, by judgment and decree dated 29.1.1987. As against this the presen