Back
2017 Supreme(Mad) 319
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
G. JAYACHANDRAN, J.
Mrs. F. Nasurin and Ors. - Appellants
Versus
S.T. Subbaiah and Ors. - Respondents
S.A.Nos.455 to 462 of 2007 and CMP.Nos.4732 and 4733 of 2016
Decided On : 17-03-2017
For the Appellant : Mr. G. Masilamani, Ms. P.T. Ramadevi
For the Respondents: Mr. Ravi Kumar Paul, M/s. Paul and Paul
The main legal point established in the judgment is that for adverse possession, the possessor must prove continuous and uninterrupted possession for the statutory period, along with animus possidendi against the true owner.
Headnote:
Adverse Possession - Property Dispute - Land Ceiling Act - [S.No.19/11 Hastinapuram Village, Saidapet Taluk] - [Land Ceiling Act] - [O.S.344/2002, O.S.352/2002, O.S.323, O.S.325, O.S.327, O.S.329, O.S.331 of 2001] - The court discussed the dispute over a piece of land purchased by the appellants in 1991, claimed to be in possession of the respondents for more than 20 years prior to the litigation. The court analyzed the evidence and found that the respondents' claim of adverse possession was not proven, and their possession was not continuous and uninterrupted for more than 12 years, thus ruling in favor of the appellants.
Fact of the Case:
The dispute involved a piece of land purchased by the appellants in 1991, claimed to be in possession of the respondents for more than 20 years prior to the litigation. The appellants filed suits for declaration and possession, while the respondents filed suits for declaration of title based on adverse possession.
Finding of the Court:
The trial court decreed the suit in favor of the purchasers, but the appellate court reversed the judgment and decreed the suits of the respondents. The second appeals were filed by the purchasers against the judgment of the appellate court.
Issues: The substantial questions of law framed by the court included the proof of adverse possession, the absence of specific date for adverse possession claim, and the burden of proof on the respondents to establish adverse possession.
Ratio Decidendi: The court found that the respondents failed to prove their adverse possession claim, as their possession was not continuous and uninterrupted for more than 12 years, and their animus possidendi against the true owners was not established.
Final Decision: The court set aside the judgment of the appellate court and upheld the judgment in favor of the purchasers, allowing the second appeals.
These batch of 8 second appeals arise out of the common judgement rendered by the trial court and the first appellate court. The suits were filed at different point of time before different courts, but later transferred to Additional Subordinate Court, Chengalpattu, renumbered and taken up for joint trial. Common evidence was recorded in O.S 344/2002 filed by the purchaser of the property being a comprehensive suit filed for declaration and possession.
2. In view of multiple suits, for easy understanding, the plaintiffs in O.S. 344/2002 Mrs. F. Nasurin, Mr. S. Faruk, Mr. C. Bose and Mrs. Usha Bose are to be referred as purchasers or appellants and the defendants S.P. Subbaiah, Nethaji Subash Chandra Bose @ M. Bose, Smt. Kanthalakshmi, P.M. Ayyasamy, L. Nagaiahsamy and P.R. Dharmalingam as occupiers or respondents.
3. The dispute is with regard to a piece of land purchased by the appellants herein in the year 1991, claimed to be in enjoyment of the respondents herein for more than 20 years prior to commencement of the litigation. The claim of the occupants is that they have ousted the true owner. They being in possession continuously and uninterruptedly for more than the statutory period, they have prescribed the title as against the true owner joined together filed suit for injunction and also later filed suits for declaration individually. Whereas, the contention of the purchaser of the property is that the occupants trespassed into the property pending suit and they have put up construction. Their possession was never peaceful and uninterrupted. Claiming title based on the sale deeds dated 23.10.91 they filed suit for injunction and subsequently suit for declaration of title and possession.
4. The earliest suit is the bare injunction suit filed by the occupiers on 23.09.1993, re-numbered O.S.354/2002 followed by the bare injunction suit filed by the purchasers on 13.10.1993 re-numbered O.S.352/2002. The comprehensive suit for declaration and possession was filed by the purchasers of the suit property on 10.01.1996 in renumbered O.S.344/2002, followed by the suits for declaration filed by the occupiers on 24.11.1998 in renumbered O.S.323,325,327,329 and 331 of 2001.
5. Based on the relief sought and the parties to the proceedings, the eight appeals can be split up into 3 categories.
(1) SA 461/2007 and S.A. 462/2007 are against the dismissal of the bare injunction suits filed by the decree holder in O.S. 352/2002 and O.S. 354/2002 filed by the occupier.
(2) S.A. 455/2007 is against the dismissal of the comprehensive suit for declaration and possession filed by the title holder in O.S. 344/2002.
(3) S.A. 456/2007 to 460/2007 are against the decree passed in the declaration suits filed by the occupiers to declare their title based on prescription in O.S.323, 325, 327, 329 and 331 of 2002.
6. The core facts pleaded and evidence let in support of the said pleadings are common to all the suits. Therefore, it is suffice to extract the gist of the respective side to decide the appeals.
The purchasers:-
The suit property initially belonged to one Venkatarama Iyer. He executed a gift deed in favour of Mrs. Saraswathy and Mrs. Jayalakshmi ammal on 30.03.1959.(Ex A-1). The donees got patta transferred in their name in the year 1982(Ex A-3). On 23.10.1991, they sold a portion of the suit property to one Mrs. Nasurin, Mr. S. Faruk, Mr. C. Bose and Mrs. Usha Bose(hereinafter to be referred as 'purchasers' in short). Vide 4 sale deeds through Ex A-2, Ex A-5, Ex A-7 and Ex A-9. Patta was issued in their respective names on 11.01.1993 vide Ex A-4, Ex A-6 , Ex A-8 and Ex A-10. While so, S.P. Subbaiah, Nethathi Subash Chandra Bose @ M. Bose, Smt. Kanthalakshmi, P.M. Ayyasamy, L. Nagaiahsamy and P.R. Dharmalingam (hereinafter to be referred as 'occupiers' in short) attempted to trespass into the suit property on 10.09.1993. Hence, a suit for injunction was filed in O.S.1789/1993 on the file of the District Munsif, Poonamallee, later transferred
