Adverse possession and limitation laws protect the possessory title against all but the true owner.

JUDGMENT : This is a second appeal preferred against the decree and judgment of the learned District Judge of Tiruchirapalli in A. S. No 141 of 1953, confirming the decree and judgment of the learned District Munsif of Tiruchirapalli in O. S. No. 398 of 1949.

2. The dispute in this case relates to S. No. 132/1B in Varaganeri village, of an extent of Ac, 1-06 cents.

3. The case for the first plaintiff the Pappammal Anna Chatram at East Chintamani (hereinafter referred as the Chatram) supported by the second plaintiff lessee in regard to this land is as follows : S. No. 132/1B formed part of a land called Pallamavadi in S. F. No. 132/1 of an extent of 4 acres 95 cents. S. F. No. 132/1 was purchased for the Chatram by its Receiver Trustee from one Chandrasekhara Pillai on 19-12-1930 and till 1948 the patta for it was in the Chatrams name and its kist was being paid by the Chatram. The land was being leased by public auction. The fourth defendant was a lessee tinder the Chatram of the entire extent of Ac. 4-95 cants, from Adi 1943 till 1949. The second plaintiff was a sub-lessee under the fourth defendant.

4. To the east of the Suit land lies S. No. 129/2 called Koluvadi which belongs to one Usman Abdul Rub Sahib. He had no right to the suit land or any portion of S. No. 132/1. His lessee was the second defendant. The two of them applied to the Tahsildar and the latter effected a sub-division of S. No. 132/1 into S. No. 132/1-A and S. No. 132/1-B. The Chatrams patta was restricted to S. No. 132/1-A Ac. 3-86 cents, and for S. No. 132/1-B Ac. 1-06 cents, patta was issued to Usman Abdul Rub Sahib.

The fourth defendants lease was due toiex-pire as just now mentioned in July 1949. The Chatram did not favour him with a renewal because he had encroached on Chatrams land and joined Rub Sahib in the patta proceedings. The lease was therefore granted to the second plaintiff for five years at Rs. 650/- per annum. The second plaintiff entered into possession but defendants 1 to 4 threatened to obstruct. They were warned by the Police on one occasion on 20-7-1949. Subsequently they again commenced to obstruct the second plaintiff and to destroy the Kanni Vaikkal running east to west.

5. The plaintiffs filed the suit out of which this second appeal arises, for a declaration and perpetual injunction and later amended the plaint claiming right to the property by adverse possession.

6. The case for the contesting defendants was that the suit land never belonged to the Chatram and has never been in the enjoyment of the plaintiffs or the fourth defendant, that this land and the land east of it measuring Ac. 3-18 cents, is called Koluvadi, that the first defendant purchased the suit land from Rub Sahib who got it by registered partition deed dated 26-6-1929, that the sub-division by the Tahsildar Janab Syed Baharuddin Sahib was as per enjoyment and that the second defendant has been the lessee of Ac. 3-18 cents, including the suit land for a long time and was in possession and that after the first defendants purchase the second defendant became his lessee and raised plantain crop on 16-7-1949 and that there is no Kanni Vaikkal which is said to have been destroyed and that defendants 3 and 4 are unnecessary parties.

7. Both the Courts below found that none of the tide deeds to which the Chatram traced its title comprised the suit land whereas the title deed* by which the defendants traced their title comprised the same. Both the Courts however found that whatever might be the original title the claim of the defts. to the land had become barred by the Chatram prescribing title by adverse possession and limitation. Therefore the suit was decreed by the trial Court and the appeal therefrom was dismissed by the lower appellate Court. Hence, this second appeal; by the defeated defendants 1 and 3.

8. The contention of Mr. S. Ramachandra Ayyar for the appellants is that the Chatram cannot succeed on the strength of possessory title aft against the true owne