Back
2016 Supreme(Mad) 720
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
P.R. SHIVAKUMAR, J.
A/m. Vadapalani Andavar Temple Devasthanam - Appellant
Vs.
The Society of St. Joseph College Tiruchirapalli & Ors. - Respondents
A.S. No. 36 of 2012 and M.P. No. 1 of 2012
Decided On : 21-03-2016
Advocate Appeared:
For the Appellant : Mr. Sriram for M/s. A.S. Kailasam Associates
For the Respondent: Mr. AR.L. Sundaresan, Senior Counsel for M/s. A.L. Ganthimathi R2 and R3
The possession follows title principle applied, and the appellant's claim of adverse possession was rejected due to lack of necessary animus. The suit was not barred by limitation as the appellant failed to prove its possession.
Headnote:
Title Declaration - Property Dispute - Code of Civil Procedure - Act 26/1963 - Sale Deed - Compromise Decree - Patta - Possession - Limitation - Relief Granted
Fact of the Case:
The first respondent filed a suit for a declaration of absolute title of the suit property and for a consequential injunction against the appellant and the respondents 2 and 3. The trial court decreed the suit in favor of the first respondent. The first defendant appealed against the decree.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the first respondent proved its title and possession of the suit property, while the appellant failed to prove its possession. The court rejected the appellant's plea of limitation and upheld the trial court's decree granting the reliefs sought by the first respondent.
Issues: The issues included the maintainability of the suit, entitlement to a declaration of title, possession and enjoyment of the suit property, valuation and court fee, and the bar of limitation.
Ratio Decidendi: The possession follows title principle applied, and the court rejected the appellant's claim of adverse possession due to lack of necessary animus. The court also held that the suit was not barred by limitation as the appellant failed to prove its possession. The court confirmed the trial court's decree in favor of the first respondent.
Final Decision: The appeal was dismissed, and the trial court's decree in favor of the first respondent was confirmed. The suit against respondents 2 and 3 was dismissed, and no cost was awarded.
The first defendant in the original suit O.S. No. 11346/2010 on the file of the VII Additional Judge, City Civil Court, Chennai has brought-forth this appeal under Section 96 of the Code of Civil Procedure against the decree of the trial court dated 10.12.2011 made in the said suit. The first respondent herein filed the said suit for a declaration of absolute title of the first respondent herein/plaintiff in respect of the suit property and for a consequential injunction against the appellant herein and the respondents 2 and 3 herein, not to cause any interference or obstruction to the first respondent/plaintiff's peaceful possession and enjoyment of the suit property. The learned trial judge, after trial, held the first respondent herein/plaintiff entitled to the reliefs sought for and by a judgment and decree dated 10.12.2011 decreed the said suit as prayed for with cost. As against the said decree of the trial court dated 10.12.2011, the first defendant in the suit has preferred the present first appeal on various grounds set out in the memorandum of grounds of first appeal.
2. The first respondent herein/plaintiff filed the suit praying for the above said reliefs based on the plaint averments, which are in brief, as follows:
i) The plaint schedule property measuring an extent of 1.59 acres comprised in old S. No. 49 Block No. 21, T.S. No. 82 in Saligramam Village, Egmore-Nungambakkam Taluk, Chennai District, more fully described in the plaint schedule, originally belonged to one Janakiram Pillai son of Krishnasamy Pillai. The said Janakiram Pillai conveyed the suit property by way of a registered sale deed dated 25.05.1933 registered as Document No. 689/1933 in the office of the Sub Registrar, Saidapet, Chennai, to the first respondent/plaintiff society. Ever since the purchase, the first respondent/plaintiff was in possession and control of the same through its representatives at Chennai. Since the property is lying vacant, the first respondent/plaintiff wanted to make use of the same at appropriate time for establishing and promoting educational avenues for the needy, who were public at large.
ii) One Susaiammal and her children filed a suit on the original side of the High Court as C.S. No. 198/1931 against the first respondent/plaintiff society, Janakiram Pillai and one Rajammal claiming title to the property and praying for a declaration of their title in respect of the property comprised in S. No. 514/1, Patta No. 63 and an injunction against the third respondent therein not to alienate the property and for other reliefs. Ultimately the said suit ended in a compromise and a compromise decree came to be passed on 13.03.1933, by which the vendor of the respondent herein/plaintiff, namely Janakiram Pillai acknowledged a sum of Rs.6,600/- as the amount due to the first respondent/plaintiff society. For the discharge of the said liability to the plaintiff society as acknowledged by Janakiram Pillai, he executed the registered sale deed referred to above in favour of the first respondent/plaintiff society. Thus the first respondent/plaintiff society derived a valid title to the suit property. The original sale deed was deposited with Tamil Nadu Educational Authorities, but the said authorities informed the first respondent/plaintiff by their communication dated 28.03.2007 that the same could not be traced in view of passage of time. However a certified copy of the said sale deed has been produced along with the plaint.
iii) When the first respondent/plaintiff approached the Revenue Authorities seeking patta to develop the suit property, to its shock and surprise, it was informed that the place came in an inam village taken over by the Government under the Tamil Nadu Act 26/1963 and patta had been granted in the name of the appellant herein/first defendant temple. However the Settlement Officer and the Revenue A
