Back
Before the Madurai Bench of Madras High Court
THE HONOURABLE MS. JUSTICE R. MALA
Chinnappa (died) & Others
Versus
Marudhan & Others
S.A.No.1740 of 1997
Decided On :Decided on : 17-09-2010
Adverse Possession - Property Dispute - S.C.No.902 of 1968 - Ex.B4, Ex.B5 - The court discussed the legal provisions related to adverse possession and the burden of proof on the party claiming adverse possession. The court emphasized the need for animus possidendi and the requirement to prove hostile possession against the true owner. The judgment highlighted the importance of continuous, uninterrupted, and open possession for the statutory period as essential elements for adverse possession.
Fact of the Case:
The plaintiffs claimed prescriptive title by adverse possession over ancestral properties. The defendants contested the claim, asserting their ownership based on a court auction purchase and subsequent possession.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the plaintiffs failed to prove animus possidendi and hostile possession against the true owner, as required for adverse possession. The court emphasized the lack of evidence showing continuous, uninterrupted, and open possession for the statutory period, leading to the dismissal of the suit.
Issues: The issues revolved around the plaintiffs' claim of prescriptive title by adverse possession, the burden of proof, and the requirement to establish animus possidendi and hostile possession against the true owner.
Ratio Decidendi: The court held that to establish adverse possession, the party must prove animus possidendi and hostile possession against the true owner, supported by continuous, uninterrupted, and open possession for the statutory period. The court emphasized the need for clear and unequivocal evidence of hostile possession to acquire prescriptive title.
Final Decision: The Second Appeal was allowed, setting aside the judgment and decree granted by the First Appellate Court and restoring the trial court's judgment in favor of the defendants.
The Second Appeal is filed by the defendants against the judgment and decree dated 05.08.1997 in A.S.No.23 of 1996 on the file of the Subordinate Court, Pudukottai, reversing the judgment and decree dated 29.11.1995 in O.S.No.155 of 1995 on the file of the District Munsif Court, Keeranur.
2. The averments in the plaint are as follows: The plaintiffs/respondents are the brothers and the suit properties are ancestral properties which are in possession and enjoyment of the plaintiffs/respondents. One Royappa Udyar, S/o Anthony Muthu Udyar filed a suit in S.C.No.902 of 1968 on the file of District Munsif Court, Pudukottai for recovery of a sum of Rs.214/-and obtained ex-parte decree. He also filed an Execution petition and the suit properties were sold through Court auction that has been confirmed on 03.01.1970. In pursuance of the Court auction sale, he taken steps for delivery of properties on 27.01.1970. It is only a paper delivery. He has not taken actual delivery of the suit properties. Now only, the plaintiffs/respondents came to know about the sale of the suit properties through Court auction in S.C.No.902 of 1968 and the decree in respect of the delivery of possession. Even after confirmation of sale on 03.01.1970, the plaintiffs/respondents are in possession and enjoyment of the suit properties till today for more than 22 years continuously. Therefore, the plaintiffs/respondents claim prescriptive title by adverse possession. Now, the appellants/defendants attempted to interfere with the possession and enjoyment of the suit properties by the plaintiffs/respondents by stating that they are the absolute owners of the suit properties. Hence, the plaintiffs/ respondents constrained to file the suit for declaration that the plaintiffs/respondents are having prescriptive title by adverse possession and also for injunction and prayed for decree.
3. The gist and essence of the written statement filed by the first defendant adopted by the second defendant are as follows: The suit property excluding Well had been duly sold in accordance with law in execution of the decree in E.P.No.1030 of 1968 in S.C.No.902 of 1968 on the file of the District Munsif Court, Pudukottai which was purchased by Royappa Udyar. The sale has been confirmed and sale certificate has also been issued and he took physical and actual possession on 18.02.1970 through Officer of the Court. Since then, the appellants/defendants are enjoying the suit properties as absolute owners. The plaintiffs/ respondents claim that they are having prescriptive title by adverse possession is unsustainable in law. Royappa Udyar entered into an agreement with the second defendant to sell the suit properties and on the basis of the agreement in part performance of the said agreement, Royappa Udyar received the entire sale consideration of Rs.1200/-and delivered possession of the suit properties to the second defendant/third respondent herein. The defendants are in possession and enjoyment of the suit properties for the past 13 years. While so, Royappa Udyar died. Since there is no sale deed, the defendants have not applied for transfer of patta in their favour in respect of the suit properties. On 17.03.1991, the first defendant/appellant herein (deceased) obtained sale deed from the heirs of Royappa Udyar. From that date onwards, he continued to be in possession and enjoyment of the suit properties. The plaintiffs/ respondents have no manner of right over the suit properties. The defendants raised ginglee in the suit land and harvested the same. There is no cause of action for filing the suit. Hence, he prayed for dismissal of the suit.
4. The trial Court, after considering the averments both in the plaint and in the written statement and considering the pleadings and arguments advanced by the learned counsel on either side, framed necessary issues and considering the oral and documentary evidence, dismissed the suit. Against that, the plaintiffs/respondents preferred
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
