S. B. Sinha, J. - (1.) The plaintiff is in appeal before us from a judgment and decree dated 16-2-1999 passed by the High Court of Judicature at Madras in Second Appeal No. 671/87 whereby and whereunder the appeal preferred by the respondents herein from a judgment and order dated 25-11-1986 of the Subordinate Judge, Tiruvallur, Tamil Nadu which in turn reversed the judgment and decree dated 10-9-1984 dismissing the suit of the appellant was allowed. The plaintiff claimed title over the suit property by reason of a deed of sale dated 19-8-1978. The respondents, admittedly, are in possession of the said property. As the respondents refused to vacate the suit land, the aforementioned suit was filed. The respondents in their written statement, inter alia, contended as follows :". . . . The plaintiff is not the owner of the suit items. These defendants are living in the Cherinatham and the defendants are in continuous, open and uninterrupted possession of the house site and the backyard. In the backyard, there are very huge Othia trees, date trees, Portia trees and other trees which are there for generations. They were planted by the defendants ancestors. These defendants have also perfected title to the said portions in their occupation for more than the statutory period."
(2.) The learned trial Judge framed several issues; one of them being "Whether the defendants perfected title to the suit property by adverse possession -
(3.) As indicated hereinbefore, the learned trial Judge dismissed the suit of the appellant holding that the defendants have perfected their title by remaining in possession of the suit land for a period of more than twelve years. In the appeal preferred thereagainst by the appellant, the Subordinate Judge, Tiruvallur reversed the said findings of the learned trial Judge holding as follows : "There is no proof to the order to say that the vendor of the suit property who sold the same to the plaintiff in 1969 had the knowledge of the Defendants possession over the property, that though he sold the land to the extent of 1.59 acres in Survey No. 83, the possession was obtained only after deducting the 5 cents of the land under the possession of the defendants and that the same was the intention of the plaintiff and further as pointed out by the learned counsel for Appellant that the order of the lower Court that it is the intention of the plaintiff is only the lower Courts assumption." ;