Back
2015 Supreme(Mad) 2153
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
R. MALA, J.
Neelakandan - Petitioner
Versus
Duraimuthu & Others - Respondents
S.A.No. 1395 of 2003
Decided On : 01-07-2015
For the Appellant:R. Rajendra Kumar, Advocate.
For the Respondents:N. Ramanujam, Advocate.
The central legal point established in the judgment is the requirement for open, continuous, and uninterrupted possession adversed to the interest of the true owner for a statutory period to establish adverse possession.
Headnote:
Adverse Possession - Property Dispute - 2003 (3) MLJ page No.785, 2000 (3) L.W. 848, (2000) 3 MLJ 785, 1996 (II) CTC 199, 2014 AIR CC 550 - The judgment discusses the claim of adverse possession by the defendant/appellant and the legal principles governing adverse possession. The court emphasizes the need for open, continuous, and uninterrupted possession adversed to the interest of the true owner for a statutory period to establish adverse possession. The court also highlights the importance of proving animus possidendi and the intention to possess the property as one's own. The judgment affirms the lower courts' findings that the appellant/defendant failed to establish adverse possession, and the respondents/plaintiffs are entitled to the decree as prayed for in the plaint.
Fact of the Case:
The dispute arises from a property originally belonging to Natesa Mudaliar, purchased from Arumuga Mudaliar. The plaintiffs, legal heirs of Natesa Mudaliar, filed a suit for declaration of title and recovery of possession against the defendant, son of Arumuga Mudaliar, who claimed adverse possession.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the appellant/defendant failed to establish adverse possession and upheld the decree and judgment passed by the lower courts, confirming the respondents/plaintiffs' entitlement to the decree as prayed for in the plaint.
Issues: The main issue revolved around the claim of adverse possession by the appellant/defendant and the entitlement of the respondents/plaintiffs to the decree for declaration of title and recovery of possession.
Ratio Decidendi: The court emphasized the need for open, continuous, and uninterrupted possession adversed to the interest of the true owner for a statutory period to establish adverse possession. The judgment also highlighted the importance of proving animus possidendi and the intention to possess the property as one's own.
Final Decision: The second appeal was dismissed, and the decree and judgment passed by both the Courts below were confirmed. The appellant/defendant was granted two months to hand over the possession of the suit property to the respondents/plaintiffs.
1. The second appeal arises out of the judgment and decree dated 09.01.2003 made in A.S.No.82 of 1997 on the file of the Fast Track Court, (Additional District Court) Kancheepuram, confirming the judgment and decree dated 28.02.1997 made in O.S.No.1204 of 1993 on the file of the Additional District Munsif Court, Kancheepuram.
2. The averments made in the plaint are as follows:-
(i) Originally, the house property belonged to one Natesa Mudaliar, the father of the plaintiffs 1 to 3 and husband of the fourth plaintiff and he purchased the same under registered sale deed dated 05.10.1953 for a valuable consideration of Rs.500/- from one Arumuga Mudaliar. Ever since from the date of sale deed, Natesa Mudaliar is in possession and enjoyment of the suit property, after his death, the plaintiffs herein are in possession and enjoyment of the same. The said Arumuga Mudaliar is none other than the father of the defendant herein.
(ii) The defendant seems to have transferred the adangal in his name in 1397 fasli without the knowledge of the plaintiffs by mis-representation.
(iii) The vendor Arumuga Mudaliar was a close relative of the plaintiffs (i.e.) sister's husband of Natesa Mudaliar. He requested the deceased Natesa Mudaliar to let out the house to him and therefore, the house was let out to Arumuga Mudaliar for the rent of Rs.25/- per month about 10 years. Arumuga Mudaliar was paying the rent regularly, after his death, his son/defendant has been paying the same regularly. When the plaintiffs demanded the defendant to vacate the suit property, the defendant refused to do the same, therefore, the plaintiffs sent a legal notice to the defendant, for which, the defendant sent a reply stating that he denied the title of the plaintiffs to the suit property. Therefore, the plaintiffs constrained to file the suit for declaring the title of the plaintiffs to the suit property and direct the defendant to hand over the vacant possession of the suit property and to appoint an Advocate Commissioner to ascertain the profits from the suit house under Order 26 Rule 12 C.P.C. Thus, the plaintiffs prayed for decree.
3. The gist and essence of the written statement filed by the defendant are as follows:
(i) The father of the defendant had purchased the suit property from one Poongiliammal as per deed dated 26.01.1944 and he himself constructed in the said site and the property tax was also assessed in his name. After his death, the defendant has been paying the tax for the said house property and has been in possession and enjoyment. Patta was also transferred in the name of the defendant. Therefore, he prayed for dismissal of the suit.
4. The gist and essence of the additional written statement filed by the defendant are as follows:
(i) By virtue of long and uninterrupted, continuous, open and peaceful possession and enjoyment of the suit property beyond the statutory period, the defendant is entitled to the suit property by adverse possession and prescription. The suit is barred by limitation. The suit is bad for non-joinder of necessary parties namely, other legal heirs of deceased Arumuga Mudaliar. Therefore, he prayed for dismissal of the suit.
5. The Learned Trial Judge after considering the averments both in the plaint and written statement and arguments on either side counsel, has framed necessary issues and on perusing the oral and documentary evidence viz., P.W.1, P.W.2, D.W.1, D.W.2 and Exs.A1 to A7 and Exs.B1 to B31, decreed the suit. Aggrieved against the judgment and decree passed by the trial court, the defendant preferred an appeal in A.S.No.82 of 1997 on the file of the Additional District Court, Fast Track Court, Kancheepuram.
6. The learned First Appellate Court has considered the arguments advanced on either side, framed necessary point for consideration, confirmed the Judgment and Decree passed by the Trial Court. Against the Decree and Judgment passed by the first Appellate Court, the present second appeal has been preferred by
