Back
2014 Supreme(Mad) 786
BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT
G. Chockalingam, J.
P. Mokkamayan
Versus
Lakshmiammal and Another
S.A.(MD)No. 853 of 2007
Decided On : 4 April 2014
T. Srinivasa Raghavan, for Appellant T.P. Subramanian, A. Mahendravarma, for Respondents
The appellant proved his title and possession of the suit property, while the respondents failed to prove adverse possession.
Headnote:
Adverse Possession - Property - The respondents claimed adverse possession of the suit property. The court held that to claim adverse possession, the respondents had to prove continuous possession without interruption for 12 years preceding the date of filing the suit. The respondents failed to prove their adverse possession and the appellant proved his title and possession through a sale deed. The court concluded that the respondents had no right to encroach upon the suit property and ordered them to surrender possession to the appellant.
Fact of the Case:
The plaintiff filed a suit seeking declaration and permanent injunction for a vacant property. The defendants claimed adverse possession. The trial court decreed the suit, but the first appellate court reversed the decision. The second appeal was filed by the plaintiff. The substantial questions of law were formulated for consideration. The appellant argued that the first appellate court failed to consider the facts and evidence, while the respondents argued that the first appellate court rightly concluded that the appellant did not prove his case. The court considered the evidence, including the report and plan of the Advocate Commissioner, and the sale deed. The court found that the appellant had proved his title and possession, while the respondents failed to prove adverse possession. The court allowed the second appeal and set aside the judgment of the first appellate court, confirming the judgment of the trial court regarding the declaration of title and possession of the suit property.
Finding of the Court:
The court analyzed the evidence presented by both parties, including the sale deed and the report and plan of the Advocate Commissioner. The court found that the appellant had proved his title and possession, while the respondents failed to prove adverse possession. The court also considered the substantial questions of law formulated for consideration. The court concluded that the first appellate court had wrongly come to the conclusion that the appellant had not proved the title and possession of the suit property. The court set aside the judgment of the first appellate court and confirmed the judgment of the trial court regarding the declaration of title and possession of the suit property.
Ratio Decidendi: The appellant proved his title and possession of the suit property, while the respondents failed to prove adverse possession. The first appellate court wrongly concluded that the appellant had not proved the title and possession. The court set aside the judgment of the first appellate court and confirmed the judgment of the trial court regarding the declaration of title and possession of the suit property.
Result: The second appeal was allowed. The judgment and decree of the first appellate court were set aside, and the judgment and decree of the trial court were confirmed regarding the declaration of title and possession of the suit property.
1. Challenge in this second appeal is to the judgment and decree, dated 14.03.2007 passed in A.S. No. 175 of 2002 by the Subordinate Judge, Madurai, reversing the judgment and decree passed in O.S. No. 1394 of 1992, dated 19.06.2002 on the file of the District Munsif Court, Madurai.
2. The appellant herein as plaintiff has instituted Original Suit No. 1394 of 1992 on the file of the trial Court seeking the relief of declaration and permanent injunction, wherein the present respondents have been shown as defendants.
3. It is averred in the plaint that the plaintiff purchased the suit property through a registered sale deed in the month of April 1992 from one P.T. Mani as he stands the Power Agent of P.P. Thavasi Konar. The suit property is a vacant site measuring 1773 sq. ft shown as ‘ABCD’ in the rough sketch and the plaintiff has got absolute right and possession of the schedule mentioned property. The defendant and her family members are living in their adjoining house on the eastern side shown as ‘EFGH’. On 05.10.1992, the defendants started to put up a portable tent in the vacant site and also put up four pillars encroaching vacant site. On coming to know the same, the plaintiff has gone to the suit property and removed the same. At that time, the defendants and their family members jointly threatened the plaintiff stating that they would definitely trespass into the land and put a tent. Hence, on 07.10.1992 the plaintiff lodged a complaint before G-2, Police Station, Madurai city and the same is pending for enquiry so far. Thereafter, the plaintiff had built up Bamboo fence on all four ways and locked the site, but the defendants along with family members entered into the vacant site and damaged the bamboo fence and trying to put a new tent by encroaching the vacant site belonging to the plaintiff. Since the plaintiff is residing at Valangakulam village, Usilampatty Taluk, Madurai District, which is far away from the suit property, the plaintiff could not be able to look after the suit property frequently. Therefore, the plaintiff has filed the suit for the relief as stated supra.
4. In the written statement as well as the additional written statement filed on the side of the defendants, it is averred as follows:
The description of property mentioned in the plaint is in-correct. The defendants are in no-way connected with the alleged sale deed said to have been executed by one P.T. Mani in favour of the plaintiff in respect of the suit property. The alleged sale deed is nothing, but a false and fraudulent document brought into existence in order to snatch the suit property from the hands of the defendants. The defendants had put up one tiled house at the north western corner and also put up one thatched house on the southern side and both houses are in existence for the past 18 years. The defendants had also put up one thatched shed by raising stone pillars in the middle of these two houses and it also exists for the past 18 years for the purpose of tethering their sheep and keeping their hens and obtained electricity service connection for the suit property bearing S.C. No. 1126. The plaintiff attempted to interfere with the peaceful possession and enjoyment of the defendants in the suit property under the guise of temporary injunction granted in I.A. No. 1118 of 1992 on false grounds. The plaintiff has no locus standi to claim any right or title or interest over the suit property. Hence, the defendants prayed for the dismissal of the suit.
5. The trial court after considering the rival evidence adduced on either side has decreed the suit. Against the judgment and decree passed by the trial court, the 1st defendant as appellant have preferred the A.S. No. 175 of 2002 on the file of the first appellate court. The first appellate court after hearing both sided and upon reappraising the evidence available on record has allowed the appeal and thereby set aside the judgment and decree passed by the trial court in O.S. No.
