Court cannot protect possession of rank trespassers attempting to grab land with forged documents: Madras High Court - 2025-07-14

Madras HC Dismisses Appeals in Property Dispute, Brands Litigants "Rank Trespassers" Using Forged Documents

CHENNAI: The Madras High Court, in a scathing judgment, has dismissed two cross-appeals in a property dispute, holding that courts cannot protect the possession of "rank trespassers" who attempt to grab land using forged and invalid documents. Hon'ble Dr. Justice G. Jayachandran condemned the legal battle as a "mock fight between impersonators based on forged documents," exposing a calculated scheme to usurp the property of a deceased French citizen.

The court upheld the trial court's decision to dismiss both suits, refusing to grant any relief to either party and stating, "If their possession is protected, it will be giving premium to their fraudulent act."

A Tangled Web of Claims

The case involved two appeals, one filed by Alamelu (A.S.No.329 of 2022) and the other by Coumar (A.S.No.102 of 2023), against a common judgment by the III Additional District Judge, Puducherry. Both parties laid competing claims to the same property, originally owned by Krishnaveni Ammal, who passed away in France in 1998. The trial court had dismissed both their suits for declaration of title, finding neither could establish a valid claim.

Arguments of the Parties

Alamelu's Dual Claims: Alamelu, represented by Senior Counsel Mr. S. Subbiah, presented two conflicting chains of title for the disputed property:

1. In her own suit (O.S.No.51/2015): She claimed to have purchased the property in 2008 from one Ramakrishnan, who had allegedly bought it from the original owner, Krishnaveni Ammal, via a sale deed dated March 31, 2000.

2. As a defendant in Coumar's suit (O.S.No.38/2017): She and her husband, Paramasivam, claimed the property through a different lineage, tracing it to one Kowsalya. They argued that Kowsalya's power of attorney (POA) holder authorized Alamelu, who then sold the property to her husband in 2000.

Coumar's Claim: Coumar, represented by Mrs. V. Srimathi, based his title on two key documents: 1. A Will purportedly executed by Krishnaveni Ammal in his favour in 1997. 2. A compromise decree from a previous appeal (A.S.No.4 of 2011) which, he argued, validated his claim and the Will.

High Court's Damning Findings

Justice G. Jayachandran meticulously dismantled each party's claims, exposing them as fraudulent and legally untenable.

1. The Forgery of a Dead Woman's Signature: The court found that Alamelu's primary claim was built on a forged document. The sale deed in favour of her predecessor, Ramakrishnan, was purportedly executed by Krishnaveni Ammal on March 31, 2000. However, Krishnaveni's death certificate (Ex.B4) proved she had died on September 26, 1998. The court declared the sale deed invalid, "having been executed in the name of a deceased person."

2. The Invalid Power of Attorney: The court also invalidated Alamelu and her husband's alternate claim. The sale deed executed by Alamelu in favour of her husband in 2000 was based on a POA given to her by Sivaraman. The court noted two fatal flaws: * Sivaraman himself had died in 1999, rendering any action on his POA in 2000 void. * The original POA given to Sivaraman did not permit him to further delegate his authority, making Alamelu's authority invalid under the legal principle of delegatus non potest delegare (a delegate cannot further delegate).

3. The Unproven Will and Collusive Decree: Coumar's claim met a similar fate. The court held that the Will he relied upon was not proven in accordance with Section 68 of the Indian Evidence Act. The attesting witness failed to provide the required testimony, and the signature on the document itself was suspect. Furthermore, the compromise decree he presented was deemed "shrouded with suspicion and element of collusion," and therefore not binding on third parties like Alamelu.

"A Mock Fight Between Impersonators"

In a powerful concluding observation, Justice Jayachandran stated:

"To say the least, this is a mock fight between impersonators based on forged documents... A clear scheming to knock away the property of a French citizen is clearly exposed through cross-verification of the documents and respective pleadings of the parties. There is no reason to believe that they are innocent persons. It is apparent that knowing very well that the property belongs to a owner in absentia or deceased. Records are fabricated and attempt to get judicial orders, is made."

Final Decision

The High Court refused to protect the possession of either party, despite their claims of having made constructions on the land. Dismissing both appeals, the court affirmed that it would not endorse illegal trespass and fraudulent actions. The judgment serves as a stark warning against attempts to manipulate the legal system with fabricated documents to grab property.