The main legal point established in the judgment is the acquisition of title by adverse possession and the application of Article 139 and Article 143 of the Limitation Act.

Venkataramana Rao, J.

1. This is a suit for recovery of possession of the suit site and the value of trees alleged to have been cut and removed by the servants of defendant 1. The suit property is Town Survey No. 726 in Mayavaram town and forms part of the village Abisheka Kattalai which belongs to the temple of Sri Mayuranathaswami whereof defendant 1 is the trustee, defendant 2, being alleged to be a lessee under him. The pymash numbers of the said site are 1234 and 1235. The entry relating to No. 1235 in the pymash account shows that a portion thereof was in the occupation of one Samu Mudali who was described as Kasavargam Samu Mudali. The learned District Munsif inferred from this that in 1829 Samu Mudali was occupying a portion of Pymash No. 1235, as a Kasavargam tenant of the temple and the learned District Judge also concurs with the District Munsif. But in or about 1837 Samu Mudali purported to sell half of both Pymash Nos. 1234 and 1235 as absolute owner by a deed of sale dated 25th December 1837 to one Somu Mudali. The sale deed recites that Somu Mudali was already in possession of a half of the said survey numbers by virtue of a gift and the remaining half was being sold to him. Thus by 1837 Somu became the absolute owner of both survey numbers and was in possession and enjoyment thereof. In the sale deed there is no reference to the said lands or any portion thereof being held on Kasavargam tenure. From the date of sale the said property appears to have continued in the family of Somu Mudali till about 1884 when there was a sale of the said property in favour of the plaintiffs father by one Parvathi Anni widow of one Rangaswami Mudali, brother of Somu Mudali. It appears that during the lifetime of Somu Mudali he effected two mortgages once in 1880 and again in 1882. It was to discharge the mortgage of 1882 that Parvathi Anni sold the said property. After the death of the plaintiffs father at a family partition in 1900 the suit property fell to the share of the plaintiff. The case of the plaintiff is that up to 1927 it was in his enjoyment when defendant 1s servant unlawfully trespassed upon the land and dispossessed him. He traces his title and ownership to the suit property from Somu Mudali. Defendant 1, trustee pleaded that the suit property belonged to the temple and continued to belong to it, that Samu Mudali was in occupation of a portion thereof in consideration of his doing service to the temple on festival occasions and also in consideration of his giving coconuts to the temple from the trees standing thereon on festival and other occasions, i.c., as a Kasavargam tenant, that Somu Mudali was similarly in occupation doing the same service but after his death the properties came into the possession of the temple and continued to be in its possession. He denied that the plaintiff or his father was in possession and also the trespass alleged. It will thus be seen that on the pleadings the title asserted on either side was one of absolute ownership. The written statement clearly indicates that after Samu Mudalis death the Kasavargam tenancy came to an end and the property was not in the possession of anybody on Kasavargam tenure. The issues do not raise any question of tenure. Issues 1, 2 and 5 raise the question of the plaintiffs title as alleged in the plaint and his possession within 12 years before suit and also acquisition of title by prescription by the plaintiff. If at all the question of Kasavargam tenancy may be said to be involved in the issue relating to prescription. The learned District Munsif on a review of the entire evidence, in a carefully considered judgment found that after the site had passed into Somus possession none had been doing any service to the temple, that he, his brother and his brothers widow were enjoying it as their absolute property, that after its sale to the plaintiffs father in 1884, he was enjoying it as his private property and that after his death, the plaintiffs fa