SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Audio Icon Pause Audio Icon
judgment-img

2012 Supreme(Mad) 3219

High Court of Judicature at Madras
T. RAJA
Dhanabakiyammal & Others
Versus
Samikkanu & Another
SECOND APPEAL NO.129 OF 2006
Decided on : 25-07-2012

Advocates appeared:
For the Appellants:I.C. Vasudevan, Advocate.
For the Respondents: R1 - Ms. N. Mala, R2 - No Appearance.

Continuous and peaceful possession for the statutory period establishes entitlement to claim adverse possession.

Headnote:

Adverse Possession - Property Dispute - 1977 - 30.11.1977 - The court discussed the validity of the sale receipt dated 13.05.1968, continuous possession, and the issuance of patta in favor of the plaintiff. The court concluded that the plaintiff had established continuous and peaceful possession for more than 20 years based on the sale receipt and kist receipts from 1971 to 1993.

Fact of the Case:

The plaintiff sought relief after being obstructed from using a property he had purchased in 1968. The defendants claimed adverse possession due to continuous possession.

Finding of the Court:

The court found in favor of the plaintiff, holding that he had established continuous and peaceful possession for more than 20 years based on the sale receipt and kist receipts from 1971 to 1993.

Issues: Validity of sale receipt, continuous possession, entitlement to claim adverse possession, joint family property, and the right to challenge possession.

Ratio Decidendi: The plaintiff's continuous and peaceful possession for more than 20 years based on the sale receipt and kist receipts from 1971 to 1993 established his entitlement to claim adverse possession.

Final Decision: The court dismissed the second appeal and confirmed the judgments and decrees passed by the lower courts in favor of the plaintiff.

Judgment :-

1. The present second appeal has been filed by the defendants as against the judgment and decree passed by the learned Additional Subordinate Judge Court, Thindivanam, in A.S. No.107 of 2003, dated 11.04.2005, confirming the judgment and decree passed by the by the learned Additional District Munsif Court, Thindivanam, in O.S.No.735 of 1993, dated 21.07.2003.

2. Brief facts leading to the filing of the second appeal are given as under:-

The plaintiff/respondents herein have approached one Kuppusamy, son of Thulasiammal for purchase of suit property. Accepting the offer from the plaintiff, the said Kuppusamy, on receiving the sale consideration of Rs.3,300/-, issued a receipt for sale dated 13.05.1968, and thereby handed over the physical possession of the suit property, with a promise that after the completion of marriage of his daughter, a sale deed would be properly registered in favour of the plaintiff. Subsequently, after the completion of marriage of his daughter, unfortunately, he died. Before the death of said Kuppusamy, his mother Thulasiammal also issued a receipt acknowledging the payment of sale consideration of suit property, in which the said Kuppusamy also appended his signature. In view of these two receipts, he continued to be in possession by paying kist receipts from the year 1968. In the year 1977, the plaintiff also had moved an application before the Revenue Authorities for issuance of patta. Entertaining the said application, the plaintiff was also issued with patta on 30.11.1977 and thereafter, he has been in continuous possession. Whileso, when the matter stood thus, in the year 1993, the children of the deceased Kuppusamy, obstructed the plaintiff from using the said suit property, which necessitated the plaintiff to file a suit for the said relief.

3. The defendants also filed a written statement taking a plea that they are also in continuous possession, therefore, they are prescribed with the title by virtue of continuous and peaceful adverse possession.

4. Under these circumstances, the trial Court took up the matter and finally accepting the case of the plaintiff that from the date of sale receipt dated 13.05.1968 issued by one Kuppusamy and his mother Thulasiammal, he has been in possession and to that effect he has also produced the kist receipts from the years 1971 to 1993, concluded that the plaintiff has established his case that he has been in continuous and peaceful possession for more than 20 year. On that basis, when the suit was decreed, the same was challenged before the learned first appellate Court and the learned first appellate Court, finding no infirmity in the judgment and decree passed by the learned trial Court, dismissed the appeal. As against the same, the present second appeal has been filed by the unsuccessful defendants.

5. This Court, at the time of entertaining the second appeal, framed for the following substantial questions of law for consideration:-

i. Whether the Courts below are correct in holding that the first respondent/plaintiff was entitled for claim of adverse possession when the alleged purchase of the suit property under Ex.A1 was found invalid and rejected by the Courts below?

ii. Whether the Courts below are correct in holding that the appellants failed to prove that the suit property stands in the name of Thulasiammal was not the joint family property of the Thulasiammal on the claim of the third party purchaser?

iii. Whether the Courts below are correct in granting the relief of adverse possession without proving the necessary animus to the suit property while rejecting Ex.A1 as invalid?

iv. Whether the plaintiff could take both claim of title and adverse possession in one suit?

v. Whether the Courts below are correct in granting the relief of adverse possession without proving the continuous possession of the suit property as alleged?

6. Learned counsel appearing for the appellants submitted that when the suit property was originally belong




Click Here to Read the rest of this document

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

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

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon Back to top