https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=193200 Public records showed the deity as registered inamdar, so the suit lands were held to belong to the temple endowment. The 1851 sanad was not produced, and adverse inference, together with the proved mode of enjoyment, led to the conclusion that the arrangement was only a lease from year to year in return for daily supply of oil, not a permanent tenancy. A tenant could not acquire title by adverse possession while the tenancy continued, and the alleged hostile notice did not terminate the tenancy. The suit was therefore treated as timely, the plea of adverse possession and limitation failed, and possession was directed to be restored with inquiry into mesne profits. en-us Mon, 20 Sep 1965 00:00:00 +0530 Mon, 17 Jul 2017 12:04:23 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=193200 Public records showed the deity as registered inamdar, so the suit lands were held to belong to the temple endowment. The 1851 sanad was not produced, and adverse inference, together with the proved mode of enjoyment, led to the conclusion that the arrangement was only a lease from year to year in return for daily supply of oil, not a permanent tenancy. A tenant could not acquire title by adverse possession while the tenancy continued, and the alleged hostile notice did not terminate the tenancy. The suit was therefore treated as timely, the plea of adverse possession and limitation failed, and possession was directed to be restored with inquiry into mesne profits. Case-Laws Indian Laws Mon, 20 Sep 1965 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=193200