Back
2016 Supreme(Mad) 3774
BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT
S.S.SUNDAR, J.
K. Ramasamy – Appellant
Versus
Ayyasamy – Respondent
Second Appeal (MD) No.765 of 2014 and M.P.(MD)Nos.1 and 2 of 2014
Decided On : 15-12-2016
For the Appellant : Mr. A. Arumugam
For the Respondent: Mr. M. Vallinayagam, M/s. D. Nallathambi
The judgment establishes that possession based on an invalid title does not automatically lead to adverse possession. Additionally, the judgment clarifies the maintainability of a suit for bare injunction when the defendant has not pleaded a case to establish title.
Headnote:
adverse possession - property dispute - Limitation Act - Registration Act - adverse possession, unregistered sale deed, possession, title, bare injunction
Fact of the Case:
The plaintiff filed a suit for permanent injunction against the defendant, claiming ownership of a property purchased from the legal heirs of Sangava Naicker. The defendant contested, claiming adverse possession based on an oral sale and unregistered sale deed. The trial court and appellate court found in favor of the plaintiff, confirming the plaintiff's title and rejecting the defendant's adverse possession claim. The defendant appealed to the High Court, arguing substantial questions of law related to adverse possession, registration of documents, and maintainability of the suit for bare injunction.
Finding of the Court:
The High Court dismissed the appeal, upholding the lower courts' findings that the plaintiff had established title to the property and that the defendant had not proved adverse possession. The court also held that the suit for bare injunction was maintainable, as the defendant had not pleaded a case to establish title. The court found no legal infirmity in the lower courts' findings and dismissed the appeal.
Issues: The main issue was the claim of adverse possession by the defendant based on an oral sale and unregistered sale deed. Other issues included the maintainability of the suit for bare injunction and the correctness of the lower courts' findings.
Ratio Decidendi: The court held that the defendant's possession did not become adverse from the date of the invalid sale, as the execution of the unregistered sale deed was disputed and could not be relied upon. The court also found that the suit for bare injunction was maintainable, as the defendant had not pleaded a case to establish title. The court upheld the lower courts' findings, concluding that the defendant had not proved adverse possession and that the suit for bare injunction was maintainable.
Final Decision: The High Court dismissed the appeal, finding no legal infirmity in the lower courts' findings and upholding the plaintiff's title to the property.
The defendant in the suit in O.S.No.45 of 2009 on the file of the Additional District Munsif Court, Sankarankovil, is the appellant in this Second Appeal.
2. The respondent herein filed a suit in O.S.No.45 of 2009 for permanent injunction restraining the appellant herein from interfering with the plaintiff's peaceful possession and enjoyment of the suit property. The suit property is an extent of 2.21.0 Hectares equivalent to 5.46 acres in Survey No.72/1, Kuruvikulam Village and Panchayat, Kalugumalai Sub Registration District, Sankarankovil Taluk.
3. The case of the respondent in the plaint are as follows:
3.1. The suit property was the self-acquired property of one Sangava Naicker. After his death, the property devolved on his three sons, namely, Seenivasa Naicker, Rajagopal Naicker, and Samy Ayyaa Naicker. After the death of Sangava Naicker, all the three sons of Sangava Naicker were enjoying the property in common. Thereafter, one of the sons, namely, Rajagopal Naicker died leaving behind his wife Tmt.Rajammal. Another son Samy Ayya Naicker died leaving behind his son Thiyagarajan. Seenivasa Naicker had one son by name Thirupathy. The plaintiff purchased the suit property from the legal heirs of Sangava Naicker by a registered sale dated 25.09.2008 for a valid consideration of Rs.2,07,740/-. The plaintiff is also in enjoyment of the suit property pursuant to the sale deed. The plaintiff is raising green gram, black gram, etc., in the suit property. However, the defendant made an attempt on 25.02.2009 to interfere with the possession of the plaintiff. Hence, a complaint was given to the local police and the defendant was warned by the police. However, the defendant is trying to interfere with the peaceful possession of the plaintiff even contrary to the undertaking he had earlier given to the police. Hence, the plaintiff is constrained to file the suit.
4. The suit was contested by the appellant on many grounds. Though it was admitted by the appellant that the suit property originally belonged to Sangava Naicker, it was the specific case of the appellant that in a partition between one of the sons of Sangava Naicker, namely, Samy Ayyaa @ Pappa Naicker and the other legal heirs of Sangava Naicker, the suit property was allotted to the said Samy Ayyaa @ Pappa Nicker and enjoyed by him. It was the further case of the defendant/appellant that the said Samy Ayyaa @ Pappa Naicker sold the suit property orally in August, 1971 and he confirmed the oral sale by an unregistered sale deed dated 31.12.1971. It was on the basis of the said oral sale and as confirmed by his vendor by an unregistered sale deed, the defendant/appellant claimed that he is in exclusive possession and enjoyment of the suit property for more than 38 years continuously, openly and without any interruption or interference as his own property to the knowledge of all the heirs of Sangava Naicker. It was contended by the defendant/appellant that his vendor died only on 04.01.2008 and that the enjoyment of the defendant/appellant was never objected by any other heirs of Sangava Naicker. It was further contented by the defendant/appellant that he is in settled possession for several years and hence, he had prescribed title by adverse possession.
5. The defendant/appellant further pleaded that without any previous notice, it was the plaintiff who made an attempt to interfere with the enjoyment of the defendant by ploughing the land along with the standing crops.
6. The defendant/appellant also raised a counter claim for a declaration of his prescriptive title and for consequential injunction restraining the plaintiff from interfering with his possession and also from alienating the suit property. The defendant/appellant further prayed in the counter claim that the sale deed in favour of the plaintiff dated 25.09.2008 is fabricated and not binding on the defendant/appellant and for directing the plaintiff to pay a sum of Rs.90,000/- towards compensation for destroy
