Kuppuswami Ayyar, J.
1. The plaintiffs 2 to 5 are the appellants. They are the legal representatives of the 1st plaintiff who died subsequent to the filing of the suit. The appeal is against the decree dismissing the plaintiffs' suit. The properties in dispute were purchased by the 1st plaintiff on 1st May, 1924, at a sale held for arrears of rent. The Revenue Court granted a sale certificate on 10th November, 1924. Subsequently there was an application for delivery of possession of the property and we find from a receipt granted to the party with the endorsement of the Revenue Inspector thereon that there was delivery of the property on 12th May, 1925. This suit was filed on 3rd May, 1937, for recovery of possession of the property. There was a building on the site and the defendant has all along been living in it. She pleaded that as she had been in possession for over twelve years the suit was barred by limitation that the delivery of possession on 12th May, 1925, was only a paper delivery in the sense that nothing more was done than the giving of a receipt by the auction-purchaser and it would not interfere with her possession and enjoyment. Both the lower Courts held that there was adverse possession for over 12 years and the suit was barred by limitation.
2. I do not think the view of the lower 'Courts is one that could be accepted. The auction-purchaser it is true could have obtained actual possession after removing the defendant, but he did not choose to do so. Instead he went to the locality with the Revenue Inspector and got the property delivered in the presence of witnesses there without physically evicting the tenant. It is urged for the respondent that there was absolutely no evidence to show that there was delivery of possession. The report of the Revenue Inspector is the report of an officer made in the discharge of his duty and it has to be presumed that what he stated there was true. The receipt specifically recites that the delivery was effected in pursuance of the Court's order and it is a certified copy granted by the Revenue Court. In a very nearly similar case in Kamayya v. Mahalakshmi : (1927)53MLJ339 , where the plaintiff was entitled to take actual possession of the property but instead he got only symbolical possession it was held that the fact that he obtained only symbolical possession interfered with the possession of the defendant and that the defendant could start his adverse possession only from the date of the symbolical possession. This suit which has been filed within twelve years of the delivery receipt is hence in time.
3. The lower appellate Court's decree is set aside and the appeal is remanded to the lower Court for disposal of the other points arising in the appeal. Respondent will pay appellants their costs.