111-NLR-NLR-V-02-CHARLES-v.-RAMAIYA-et-al.pdf
( 266 )
CHARLES v. RAMAIYA et al.1806.
November 18
D. C., BaduUa, 884.and 23.
Ordinance No. 22 of 187lj s. 3—Prescriptionr^Interruption by payment ofpurchase money of land possessed.
Defendant entered into possession of a parcel of land on an agree-ment with C to purchase it. He pleaded'that he paid the purchase'money by instalments, and that the last instalment was paid sixyears after he had commenced to possess the land, but that C failedto grant him a conveyance; held, that such payment, if true, wasan acknowledgment of a right existing in C, and interruptedprescription under section 3 of Ordinance No. 22 of 1871.
'J'HE facts of the case sufficiently appear in the judgment.
Aserappa, for appellant.
Bawa, for respondent.
23rd November, 1896. Lawrie, J.—
The first and second issues framed were : (1) Was Ramen Chettythe owner of the land claimed ? (2) Did plaintiff derive titlefrom Ramen Chetty under deed A, the execution of which wasadmitted ?
The learned District Judge found for the plaintiff on these issues.
He said, “ the title to the land undoubtedly was conveyed by“ deeds and testament from party to party until it reached the“ plaintiff, but such conveyance was [in the Judge’s opinion]
“ never after 1881 coupled with possession,” and what the plaintiffpurchased in 1894 was in the Judge’s opinion a paper title devoid •of value. •
But that depends on whether the defendant by independentpossession for ten years, adverse to the real owners, acquired aprescriptive title to the land.
Now it is proved that the first and third defendants entered onthe land in 1882 on an agreement with one of the plaintiff’spredecessors in title to purchase the land within a year for theprice of Rs. 330. The plaintiff’s case is that the defendants wereunable to pay this sum, and they, remained on the land as theChetty’s care-takers, that the Chetty visited the land once or twicea week, supervising the defendants’' work. The learned Judgesaid: “I do not place any. reliance on the alleged visit of the“ various Chettiek. If, as appears, .the land yielded good crops“ of coffee, at one time worth Rs.*600 or Rs. 600, and was merely“ cultivated for Palaniappa’s firm and for Karpen, surely some“ account of the income and expenditure would have been kept.
( 256 )
1896.
November 18
and 32.
Lavsie, J.
“ bat beyond the allied payment of Rs. 30, as initial expenses in“ starting the garden, there is really no evidence at all adduced by“ the plaintiff as to how the garden was managed.”
I agree with this estimate of the plaintiff’s evidence, and ifdefendants had not led evidence to prove payment of the priceof Rs. 330 I would not have had much difficulty in affirming thisjudgment for the defendants.
But the defendants say that having entered into possession in1882 on an agreement to purchase for Rs. 330, they got an exten-sion of the time to pay, and that it was not until six years hadelapsed that the last instalment was paid to the Chetty. Now, ifthat be true, can it be said that the defendants were in possessionby a title adverse to or independent of the former owners, theChetties ? Each payment which the defendants made was anacknowledgment of a right existing in the Chetties, and I find itdifficult to hold that for ten years prior to action the defendantsheld possession by a title adverse to the owners. Confessedly forat least two or three years of these ten years the defendantsacknowledged that the Chetties were still the owners; they wereduring these years paying the price ; until it was paid the Chettiesremained the owners; and it was not until the price was fullypaid that defendants had right to demand a conveyance.
I take the defendants’ admission as a whole. I accept herstatement that finally the full price was paid, but admittedly noconveyance was executed: the agreement of 1882 was not notarial.It has not been produced, and the title never passed from thesuccessive Chetties until the sale to the plaintiff in 1894.
On the other hand, the plaintiff’s case is that the payments werenever made, and the most equitable way of treating the parties isto hold that the defendants have not proved that they made thepayments. No receipts-are produced ; the oral evidence is meagre,and if they did not pay then the only difficulty 'in sustaining theirtitle by prescription disappears.
I have felt this to be a difficult case, but for the reasons I havegiven I am content to affirm with costs.
The appeal has been dealt with by a single Judge of the SupremeCourt, because it involves less than Rs. 300 and falls under theOrdinance No. 5 of 1896.
♦