Adverse possession claim allowed, appellant granted title to hill tracts, mesne profits to be ascertained.

The appeal was allowed, and the objections were overruled. The court recognized the appellant's title to the disputed hill tracts based on adverse possession and prescription. The appellant's claim was decreed with costs in all courts, and mesne profits were to be ascertained in execution, with the rights of vicinage for any raiyats remaining unaffected by the decree.

---

---

Issues Involved:
1. Title to the disputed hill tracts.
2. Adverse possession and prescription.
3. Nature of the rights exercised by the appellant.
4. Government's interference and its legal implications.
5. Admissibility and weight of evidence.

Detailed Analysis:

1. Title to the Disputed Hill Tracts:
The appellant claimed ownership of three hill tracts adjoining the zamindari of Singampatti, asserting they were ancestral property included in the zamindari since the Permanent Settlement of 1803. The respondent contested this, asserting the hills were Crown property. The District Judge initially disallowed the appellant's claim, finding no express grant and insufficient evidence to prove the hills were part of the zamindari.

2. Adverse Possession and Prescription:
The appellant argued that his family had enjoyed the hill tracts for over sixty years, asserting ownership. The judgment emphasized that acts of ownership, such as exclusive rights to pasture, wood-cutting, and gathering wild products, were performed openly and continuously, establishing a title by prescription. The court concluded that these acts demonstrated adverse possession, thereby granting the appellant legal ownership.

3. Nature of the Rights Exercised by the Appellant:
The District Judge had found the appellant's rights to be in the nature of easements rather than full ownership. However, the appellate judgment disagreed, stating that the acts performed by the appellant and his ancestors were indicative of ownership rather than mere easements. The court noted that the enjoyment of the land, including leasing out hill produce and maintaining timber depots, was consistent with ownership.

4. Government's Interference and Its Legal Implications:
The government had interfered with the appellant's enjoyment of the hills, particularly concerning forest conservancy. However, the court found no evidence that such interference was accompanied by a denial of the appellant's ownership. The restrictions imposed, such as limiting timber cutting, were seen as measures for forest protection rather than assertions of Crown ownership.

5. Admissibility and Weight of Evidence:
The court considered various documents, including ayakut accounts and reports from government officers, to determine the boundaries and ownership of the disputed tracts. While some documents were viewed with suspicion, others were deemed admissible and credible. The court found that the evidence supported the appellant's claim that the hills were part of the zamindari and had been enjoyed as such for an extended period.

Conclusion:
The appeal was allowed, and the objections were overruled. The court reversed the District Judge's decree, recognizing the appellant's title to the disputed hill tracts based on adverse possession and prescription. The appellant's claim was decreed with costs in all courts, and mesne profits were to be ascertained in execution, with the rights of vicinage for any raiyats remaining unaffected by the decree.

---