Back
2016 Supreme(Mad) 3771
BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT
S.S. SUNDAR, J.
K. Lakshiammal and Ors. – Appellants
Versus
P. Annapushpam – Respondent
Second Appeal (MD) No.151 of 2013 & M.P.(MD) Nos.2 and 3 of 2013
Decided On : 15-12-2016
For the Appellant : Mr. M.S. Jawaharlal, M/s. V. Srinivasan
For the Respondent: Mr. V. Meenakshi Sundaram, Mr. D. Nallathambi
The principle that possession follows title was a central legal point established in the judgment, influencing the court's decision in favor of the plaintiff.
Headnote:
Partition - Property Dispute - O.S.No.103 of 2002 - [Partition, Property Dispute] - [Section 100 C.P.C.] - The court discussed the evidence and pleadings of both sides and found that the plaintiff is entitled to the suit second schedule property. The court also considered the revenue records and oral evidence of parties to hold that the plaintiff has proved title and enjoyment of the suit property. The principle that possession follows title was applied, and the court held in favor of the plaintiff. The court confirmed the judgment and decree of the trial Court and the appellate Court.
Fact of the Case:
The plaintiff filed a suit for declaration of entitlement to a property and for consequential injunction restraining the defendants from interfering with her peaceful possession and enjoyment of the property. The defendants, who were the legal heirs of the original owner, disputed the plaintiff's rights based on previous suits and revenue records.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the plaintiff had proved her entitlement to the property through evidence and pleadings. The court also held that the principle of possession following title applied in this case, and the plaintiff's possession and enjoyment of the property were upheld.
Issues: The issues included the entitlement of the plaintiff to the property, the validity of the previous suits, and the applicability of the principle of possession following title.
Ratio Decidendi: The court's decision was based on the plaintiff's evidence and pleadings, the application of the principle that possession follows title, and the rejection of the defendants' claims based on previous suits and revenue records.
Final Decision: The Second Appeal was dismissed, and the judgment and decree of the appellate Court confirming the judgment and decree of the trial Court were upheld.
The defendants 1 to 17 in the suit in O.S.No.103 of 2002 on the file of the Additional District Munsif Court, Tenkasi, are the appellants in the above Second Appeal.
2. The respondent in this appeal filed a suit in O.S.No.103 of 2002 for declaration that the plaintiff is entitled to the suit second schedule property and for consequential injunction restraining the defendants from interfering with her peaceful possession and enjoyment of the suit property. The first schedule property has been described as a punja land measuring an extent of 3.85 acres in Survey No.315 in Alangulam Village, Tenkasi Taluk. The second schedule is an extent of 96 cents which is part of the first schedule property and lying on the western side of the total extent of 3.85 acres in Survey No.315. The suit second schedule is also described with reference to boundaries on all four sides.
3. The case of the respondent in the plaint are as follows:
3.1. The suit property originally belonged to the five sons of one Sorimuthu Nadar and first schedule property was the ancestral property of the five brothers. The sons of Sorimuthu Nadar were jointly enjoying the suit first schedule. One of the sons of Sorimuthu Nadar by name Samuel Devadas died as a bachelor long back. Hence, the other sons of Sorimuthu Nadar by name Subramanya Nadar, Packiyamuthu Nadar, Ramasubbu Nadar and Chidambara Nadar were in enjoyment as joint owners. About thirty five years back, the four brothers, sons of Sorimuthu Nadar, entered into a partition in respect of the suit first schedule and various other properties belonged to them and the second schedule property was allotted to the share of Packiyamuthu Nadar, the grand father of the plaintiff. Hence, the second schedule property became the absolute property of Packiyamuthu Nadar.
3.2. Packiyamuthu Nadar had only four daughters including the mother of the plaintiff one Meenakshi Ammal. The second schedule property was allotted to the share of the plaintiff's mother Meenakshi Ammal in a oral partition in the year 1968. After the life time of plaintiff's mother, the plaintiff was in enjoyment of the property by leasing out the same to one Velayutham. After the second schedule property could not be used for agriculture, the cultivating tenant surrendered his possession to the plaintiff even in the year 2000 and from then, the plaintiff is in exclusive possession and enjoyment. Ramasubbu Nadar, yet another son of Sorimuthu Nadar died leaving behind three sons. One Sorimuthu, Thiraviam and Ganapathy are the three sons of Ramasubbu Nadar. Thiraviam died and defendants 1 to 14 are the legal representatives of the two sons of Ramasubbu Nadar. The first defendant is the wife of Sorimuthu one of the sons of Ramasubbu and defendants 2 to 6 are the children of the first defendant. Defendants 7 and 8 are the daughters of one Chellammal who is the predeceased daughter of first defendant. Ganapathy second son of Ramasubbu Nadar died leaving behind his wife the 9th defendant and defendants 10 to 14 are his children.
3.3. Defendants 1,9,12 and 14 filed a suit in O.S.No.98 of 1994 for a declaration and consequential permanent injunction as against the plaintiff. The case of the defendants 1,9,12 and 14 in the said suit was negatived in the said suit. Though appeal was filed in A.S.No.159 of 1998 in the previous suit, the judgment and decree was confirmed upholding the right of the plaintiff herein in respect of the suit second schedule property. Since no further appeal is filed before this Court, the defendants are estopped from claiming any right in respect of the suit second schedule by applying the principle of res judicata.
3.4. Despite the findings in the previous suit, the defendants who are the legal heirs of Ramasubbu Nadar made an attempt to grab the property from the plaintiff by creating revenue records in their name. Even when the earlier suit was pending, some of the defendants have created a partition deed dated 23.02.2000 which is a
