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

2007 Supreme(Mad) 1537

BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT
V. Dhanapalan, J.
B. Thanu Pillai
Versus
State of Tamil Nadu, rep. by District Collector, Kanyakumari at Nagercoil
S.A. No. 746 of 1993
Decided On : 16th May, 2007

Advocates Appeared:
K. N. Thampi, for P. Ananthakrishnan Nair, for Appellant
D. Ghandiraj, Government Advocate, for Respondent

Sufficient oral as well as documentary proof is required for proving adverse possession.

Headnote:Adverse Possession—Mere passion over statutory period is not sufficient—no document supporting possession produced—moreover, property tax receipts is also not of the disputed portion of the suit property—Plaintiff failed to prove his case—no relief as such can be granted.

       

JUDGMENT

V. DHANAPALAN, J.

The plaintiff who lost his case in the Trial Court as well as in the lower appellate Court, is the appellant herein. The suit is for declaration of title and possession and injunction in respect of the plaintiff's property.

2. The case of the appellant/plaintiff, in brief, is as under:

The appellant/plaintiff purchased the suit property of 59 cents from one Ganapathy Iyer vide Exhibit A-1, sale deed dated 1.12.1966 under Old Survey Nos. 3933/7 and 3933/8. While the lands were resurveyed, the appellant/plaintiff was given patta for Resurvey No. 502/9 as against Old Survey No. 3933/7 and for Resurvey No. 502/10 as against Old Survey No. 3933/8, the area of both the new survey nos. being 25 cents and the balance area of 34 cents was included in Resurvey No. 517 which is classified as poramboke. Though the appellant/plaintiff issued suit notice to there respondent/defendant, since there was no reply for the same and B-Memo was also issued to the appellant/plaintiff, the suit came to be filed by the appellant/plaintiff.

3. The defendant-State, in its written statement, though admitted that the appellant/plaintiff purchased the lands in Old Survey Nos. 3933/A7 and 3933/A8 and Resurvey Nos. were also allotted to the appellant/plaintiff even according to his case, contended that no portion of the appellant/plaintiff's property was included in Resurvey No. 517 which is a poromboke land belonging to it.

4. On the side of the appellant/plaintiff, two witnesses were examined of whom P.W.1 is the appellant/plaintiff himself and as many as eight documents were marked. In support of the respondent/defendant's case, the Village Administrative Officer was the sole witness in addition to eleven exhibits.

5. The Trial Court, after framing four issues and after examination of oral and documentary evidence, concluded that the appellant/plaintiff's property was not merged with Resurvey No. 517 and as such, the reliefs prayed for cannot be granted. The Trial Court, further concluding that the appellant/plaintiff cannot claim adverse possession against the State, more so when he has instituted the suit after twenty years of allotting resurvey nos. and that if at all there was some mistake in allotting resurvey no., he should have instituted the suit within three years of resurveying and in case of seeking relief of declaration of title, he should have instituted the suit within a period of twelve years, dismissed the suit.

6. The lower appellate Court too, in the absence of any additional evidence produced before it, endorsing the findings of the Trial Court in all respects, confirmed its judgment and as against the concurrent findings of the Courts below, the present Second Appeal.

7. At the time of admission of this Second Appeal, the following substantial question of law was formulated:

“Whether the Courts below applied the correct principles of law in adjudicating on the question of adverse possessione”

8. Heard Mr. K.N. Thampi, learned counsel appearing for the appellant/plaintiff and Mr. D. Ghandiraj, learned Government Advocate appearing for the respondent/defendant-State.

9. On the point of adverse possession based on which alone this Second Appeal was admitted, the learned counsel for the appellant/ plaintiff has contended that merely by virtue of the appellant/plaintiff's long, unobstructed, continuous and hostile possession for seventy years, the judgments of the Courts below should be set aside and the appeal allowed.

10. The learned counsel for the appellant/ plaintiff, in support of his contention that the Survey and Boundaries Act does not bar the aggrieved party from moving the Civil Court to establish his title to the property, has placed reliance on para 18 of a judgment of this Court in the matter of Ponnu alias Kondappa Naicker and Another v. Marammal and Another Ponnu alias Kondappa Naicker and Another v. Marammal and Another Ponnu alias Kondappa Naicker and Another v. Marammal and Another (2002) 2 LW 237 : (2002) 1
















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