Back
2009 Supreme(Mad) 1798
High Court of Judicature at Madras
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE M. DURAISWAMY
Balakrishnan
Versus
Lakshmi Ammal & Another
Second Appeal No. 914 of 2000
Decided on: 18-06-2009
For the Appellant:A.K. Kumaraswamy, Advocate.
For the Respondents:T. Dhanyakumar, Advocate.
The burden of proof is on the plaintiff to establish ownership and possession, and measurements in the sale deed must align with the suit schedule measurement.
Headnote:
Adverse Possession - Property Dispute - O.S.No.814 of 1993 - [Transfer of Property Act, Section 54, Limitation Act, Section 27] - The court discussed the plaintiff's claim of adverse possession and the defendants' claim of ownership based on sale deeds and decrees. The court found that the plaintiff failed to prove his case and that there was no evidence of dispossession of the B schedule property. The burden of proof was on the plaintiff, and the measurements in the sale deed differed from the suit schedule measurement. The court upheld the judgments of the lower courts.
Fact of the Case:
The plaintiff filed a suit for declaration of ownership, permanent injunction, and recovery of possession of the suit property. The defendants disputed the plaintiff's title and possession, claiming ownership based on sale deeds and adverse possession.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the plaintiff failed to prove his case, there was no evidence of dispossession of the B schedule property, and the measurements in the sale deed differed from the suit schedule measurement.
Issues: Dispute over ownership, possession, and measurements of the suit property.
Ratio Decidendi: The burden of proof is on the plaintiff to prove ownership and possession. Mere admission by a party cannot confer title to a property when statute requires a deed. The measurements in the sale deed must align with the suit schedule measurement.
Final Decision: The above Second Appeal is dismissed. There will be no order as to costs.
1. The above Second Appeal arises against the judgment and decree in A.S.No.80 of 1998 on the file of Principal District Court, Villupuram confirming the Judgment and Decree in O.S.No.814 of 1993 on the file of Principal District Munsif, Villupuram.
2. The plaintiff in the suit is the appellant in the above second appeal. The respondents are the defendants in the suit.
3. The plaintiff filed the suit in O.S. No.814 of 1993 on the file of Principal District Munsif, Villupuram for the following relief:
(i) Declaring the plaintiff is the absolute owner of the suit A & B schedule property;
(ii) for permanent injunction restraining the defendants and their men, agents, servants in any way interfering the peaceful possession and enjoyment of A schedule property;
(iii) for recovery of possession of the B Schedule property; and
(iv) cost of the suit.
4. The brief case of the plaintiff is as follows:-
(i) According to the plaintiff, originally the suit property is the ancestral property of Santana Mudaliar, whose fore-fathers were in enjoyment of the suit property for the past 100 years. After the death of Santana Mudaliar, the legal heirs sold the property in favour of the plaintiff.
(ii) According to the plaintiff, he purchased the suit property from Santhanam, Krishnan and others on 8. 1990 and he is in enjoyment of the property since then and that the plaintiff was issued a patta in respect of suit property. After issuance of patta, the plaintiff paid the kist to the Government.
(iii) According to the plaintiff, he prescribed title by adverse possession. The defendants are the adjacent owners of the suit property. The first defendants husband is the second defendant. Since they attempted to trespass into the suit property and take forcible possession of the property, the plaintiff had filed the suit for declaration and injunction. Further, the plaintiff came to know that the defendants encroached B schedule property. Hence, the plaintiff prayed for recovery of possession of B schedule property.
5. The brief case of the defendants is as follows:
According to the defendants, the first defendant ownes a house on the south of the plaintiffs property by a deed of sale dated 21. 1963. The father of the second defendant purchased a site measuring 40 x 20. On the south of the property purchased by the father of the second defendant, one Kannammal owned a house constructed within a site measuring 40 x 20. The said Kannammal sold the house property to the first defendant by a deed of sale dated 21. 1982. The father of the second defendant, Ranganathan died on 21. 1975 leaving behind the second defendant alone his legal heir. Thus, both the defendants have became the owners of the property measuring 40 feet east to west and 40 feet north to south. Subsequently, the defendants demolished the thatched roof in both the houses and put up a single roof over the two houses making it into a single unit. That according to the defendants, while making a single unit, the defendants left out portion measuring about 2 feet north to south and 40 feet east to west for the rain water to fall from the roof. Therefore, the defendants denied the claim of the plaintiff that the plaintiff and his predecessors in title have been in possession of the property for more than 100 years. According to the defendants, they prescribed title by adverse possession on the northern side. The defendants also disputed that the plaintiffs title and possession over the property. According to the defendants, the plaintiff had purchased the property with wrong measurements. Therefore the defendants prayed for dismissal of the suit.
6. Before the trial court, the plaintiff examined 2 witnesses and marked 7 documents Exs. A-1 to A-7. On the side of the defendants, 2 witnesses were examined and four documents Exs.B1 to B4 were marked. The Commissioners report and plan were marked as Exs. C1 and C2.
7. The trial court after taking into consideration the oral and do
