B dant R. S. Maddanappa, the father of the plaintiff and the first defendant and Gargavva, the second wife of Maddanappa and her children. Madanappa died during the pendency of the appeal before thh Court and his legal representatives are the other defendants to th,• suit. Briefly stated his defence, which is also the defence of the defendants other than defendant No. I is that though the suit 0 properties belonged to Gowramma, the mother of Puttananjamma, she had settled them orally on the latter as well as on himself and that after the death of Puttananjamma he has been in possession of those properties and enjoying them as full owner. He further pleaded that it was the last wish of Puttananjamma that he should enjoy these properties as absolute owner. The plaintiff and the Jirst D defendant had, according to him, expressly and impliedly abandoned their right in these properties, that his possession over the properties was adverse to them and as he was m adverse possession for over the statutory period, the suit was barred. Finally he contended that he had spent more than Rs. 46,000 towards improvements of the properties which met partly from the income of his joint lil ancestral property and partly from the assets of the third defendant. These improvements, he· alleged, were made by him bona fide in the belief that he had a right to the suit properties and consequently he was entitled to the benefit of the provisions of Section 51 of the Transfer of Property Act.
