https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=296252 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. en-us Tue, 10 Nov 2009 00:00:00 +0530 Mon, 12 Jul 2021 16:58:04 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=296252 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. Case-Laws Indian Laws Tue, 10 Nov 2009 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=296252