Concurrent findings on tenancy and possession stand where evidence supports paguthy, and an unpleaded limitation defence fails.

The Madras High Court reiterated that concurrent findings on a landlord-tenant or paguthidar relationship will not be disturbed in second appeal unless they are shown to be perverse or unsupported by legal evidence. Here, title was proved by documents and the oral paguthy arrangement was supported by oral and documentary materials, including the defendant's admission of paying paguthy. The pleas of permissive possession under another person and adverse possession failed for lack of reliable evidence. The limitation defence also failed because termination, renewal and related facts were disputed, and limitation as a mixed question of law and fact had to be specifically pleaded before it could be raised.

---

---

Issues: Whether the concurrent findings that the defendant was a paguthidar/tenant and that the plaintiff was entitled to recovery of possession were vitiated by perversity or absence of legal evidence, and whether the suit was barred by limitation.

Analysis: The plaintiff established title through documentary evidence and proved the oral paguthy arrangement by oral and documentary materials, including the defendant's admission in the reply notice that he was paying paguthy. The defendant's plea of permissive possession under another person and adverse possession was not supported by any reliable evidence. The challenge based on limitation failed because the alleged termination of tenancy and any subsequent renewal involved disputed facts. In a civil suit, limitation as a mixed question of law and fact had to be specifically pleaded, and a party cannot raise a factual limitation defence for the first time without foundational pleadings. In second appeal, concurrent findings based on evidence were not open to interference absent perversity.

Conclusion: The finding of landlord-tenant relationship was not perverse, the limitation plea was untenable, and the concurrent decrees for possession and arrears were upheld in favour of the respondent.

---