The main legal point established in the judgment is the conclusive nature of the survey officer's decision under the Madras Survey and Boundaries Act and its impact on adverse possession claims.

Wadsworth, J.

1. These appeals arise out of a decision of the survey officer wider the Madras Survey and Boundaries Act. Second Appeal No. 537 relates to a suit in which the appellant was the plaintiff and sued for possession on the basis of a favourable decision of the survey officers; whereas S.A. No. 538 relates to O.S. No. 154 in which the respondent who was an unsuccessful claimant before the survey officer sued to set aside the survey officers decision. The decision of the survey officer in appeal is contained in Ex. F, dated 31st October, 1924. According to the appellant the relevant survey notification is Ex. S, dated 22nd November, 1926. But the learned Subordinate Judge has accepted the respondents contention that limitation began to run only from a subsequent survey notification, Ex. X, dated 21st April, 1931. If this contention is wrong, the respondents suit O.S. No. 154 is clearly time barred with reference to the terms of Section 14 of the Madras Survey and Boundaries Act. The learned Subordinate Judge gives no reasons for holding that the notification with which we are concerned is Ex. X and not Ex. Section The appellant adduced in evidence his own application to the survey authorities for a copy of the final notification relating to the survey of the village with which we are concerned, in response to which application a copy of the notification (Ex. S) was issued "to him. This notification clearly purports to be a notification under Section 13 of the Act that the survey of certain villages including the suit village is complete. Ex. X on which the respondent relies purports to be a notification that the "survey of sub-divisions consequent on the re-settlement miscellaneous inspection" of certain villages including the suit village is complete. The learned Munsif points out that there is no evidence whatever that the delimitation of the boundaries which formed the subject of the complaint to the survey officer was part of the post survey operations terminating with Ex. X and not part of the main survey terminating with Ex. Section The fact that the survey department itself regarded Ex. S as the final notification terminating the survey is shown by the copy application. I have myself no doubt that Ex. S is the final notification and that Ex. X relates to what is in effect a supplemental survey terminated by a supplemental final notification. Except in so far as it relates to boundaries changed in the course of the supplemental survey, I do not see how Ex. X can be taken to extend the time for filing a suit to contest the correctness of the boundaries laid down in the main survey which had been terminated by the statutory notification of 1926. It follows that the respondents suit O.S. No. 154 of 1931 was barred by limitation and was rightly dismissed by the trial Court. S.A. No. 538 of 1934 must therefore be allowed with costs throughout.

2. The other appeal - the appeal from the decision in the appellants suit - raises questions of greater difficulty. Granting that the decision of the survey officer finding title to the disputed land in favour of the plaintiff concludes the question of title as on that date, the question remains whether the respondent can or cannot resist the plaintiffs suit based on the survey officers order by proving adverse possession. There is a definite plea of adverse possession in the respondents written statement and though no specific issue has been raised, the question of possession has been gone into in detail by both the Courts and I think the respondent would be entitled to rely on his plea, if it could be established by good evidence. Now quite clearly no plea of adverse possession would be of any avail unless he could tack on to more recent possession his alleged hostile possession anterior to the survey officers order. Whether this is legally permissible or not, is a question on which there has been a good deal of difference of opinion. The Full Bench, in the case of Muthi