Venkatanarasimha Charyulu Peddinti vs Rayasam Gangamma Pantulu And Ors. on 20 November, 1952
In regard to point (b) there was no evidence to show that the original grant was only of the melwaram and that the kudiwaram vested in the Archakas and that on the other hand the documents filed on behalf of the plaintiff showed that the grant was of both the warams. The defendants who asserted that kudiwaram was vested in them adduced no evidence and did not discharge the burden that lay on them: 'Venkateswarlu v. Lakshmanna', AIR 1944 Mad 365 (K) and -- 'Brahmayya v. Bala Tripura Sundaramma', AIR 1948 Mad 275 (FB) (L). Turning to point (c) inasmuch as the Archakas were in enjoyment of the lands in a fiduciary capacity as trustees, they could not acquire title by adverse possession against the deity. It is well established that a trustee cannot by setting up his own title to the trust property, acquire by adverse possession a title to the property.