Madhavan Nair, J.

1. The plaintiff, appellant, instituted a suit, for establishing his right to the suit-land and for recovery of its possession from the defendants. He alleged in the plaint that the land belonged to the Devasthanam, of which he was the Dharmakartha, that it was leased to the father of the defendant and that when possession was demanded of them it was refused. The contesting defendant viz., the 2nd defendant, claimed the land as his own, as he and his ancestors enjoyed, it, for more than 50 years, as owners without any objection. On these pleadings, three issues were raised, namely : (1) Is the plaint lease true? (2) Does the plaintiff possess a valid title to the suit property? and (3) Is the suit barred by limitation under Article 144 of the Limitation Act? The District Munsif found in favour of the plaintiff, on all these issues and gave him a decree. On appeal by the 2nd defendant, the Subordinate Judge held that the property belonged to the plaint Devasthanam, but that the lease alleged was not proved. As regards the question of possession raised in the case, he set down two points for determination; Point No. 3:

Whether the plaintiff was in possession o