Order regarding denial of title must be supported by some findings.

This appeal is focussed as against the judgment and decree passed in O.S.No.566 of 1991 dated 11.11.1994 on the file of the Principal Subordinate Judge, Dindigul.

2. The parties, for convenience sake, are referred to hereunder according to their litigative status before the trial Court.

3. Broadly but briefly, the case of the plaintiff as stood exposited from the plaint could be portrayed thus:

(i) The suit property originally belonged to one deceased Ramasamy Pillai who during his life time had appointed one Muthusamy Pillai, the husband of the first defendant and father of the defendants 2 and 3, to look after his properties during the formers absence from India in connection with his stay in Cylon. Subsequently, Ramasamy Pillai returned to India and asked for accounts from his agent Muthusamy Pillai and also asked him to vacate the suit property; however, the latter prayed for some time to vacate the same. Ramasamy Pillai issued lawyers notice on 07.04.1977 which was replied by Muthusamy Pillai on 16.09.1977 raising various contentions including the one that he acquired title over the suit property by his adverse possession for over fourteen years.

(ii) Subsequently, Ramasamy Pillai died leaving behind his two sons namely Shanmugam and Dharmalingam. They by way of oral family arrangement during the year 1980, got the estate of Ramasamy Pillai divided and Dharmalingam was allotted the suit house, whereupon Dharmalingam sold the suit house to the plaintiff who filed the present suit. After the death of Muthusamy Pillai, his wife and children are in illegal occupation of the suit house. However, they agreed to pay rent at the rate of Rs.150/- per mensum which they paid till the year 1984 and thereafter, they had a volte face and refused to pay rent. Thereupon, Rent Control case was filed by the plaintiff herein in R.C.O.P.No.1 of 1989 on the file of the District Munsif, Melur against the first defendant who participated in the proceedings and claimed title to the suit property tracing the title under her husband. Thereupon, the plaintiff herein allowed the R.C.O.P.No.1 of 1989 to be dismissed so as to file the original suit as he was advised so.

4. Per contra, denying and disputing, challenging and impugning the averments, the second defendant filed the written statement which was adopted by the defendants 1 and 3, with the averments inter alia thus:

The defendants are not the trespassers in the suit property and the said Muthusamy Pillai acquired prescriptive title over it even during the life time of Ramasamy Pillai. In the reply notice dated 16.09.1977 itself, Muthusamy Pillai set out the facts that already the relationship of Principal and the Agent between Ramasamy Pillai and Muthusamy Pillai, came to an end by 1963 itself by settling the accounts. In consideration of the honest service and the work rendered by Muthusamy Pillai as agent towards Ramasamy Pillai, the latter fixed the total remuneration due to Muthusamy Pillai in a sum of Rs.8,500/- (Rupees Eight Thousand and Five Hundred only) at the rate of Rs.100/-per mensum during the relevant period of agency and instead of paying the said amount of Rs.8,500/-in cash to Muthusamy Pillai, the suit property was allowed to be in the occupation of Muthusamy Pillai and his family in their own right as owners and the fact remains that eversince 1950, they were in possession and enjoyment and from the year 1963 onwards, their possession got changed as the one on their own right. Muthusamy Pillai also acquired title by adverse possession by virtue of his continuance, open, hostile and uninterrupted enjoyment of the suit property for over the period of limitation.

5. The trial Court framed several issues and during trial, on the side of the plaintiff, she examined herself as P.W.1 and Exs.A.1 to A.16 were marked and on the side of the defendants, the second defendant examined himself as D.W.1 and Exs.B.1 to B.32 were marked.

6. Ultimately, the trial Court decreed