Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
T. RAVINDRAN, J.
Radhakrishnan & Others – Appellants
Versus
Tamilarasi & Others – Respondents
S.A. No. 171 of 2001
Decided On : 03-11-2017
ancestral property - Suit for declaration and permanent injunction - UDR scheme - patta - possession and enjoyment - adverse possession - title - boundary recitals - second appeal - substantial questions of law
Fact of the Case:
The case involved a dispute over ancestral property claimed by the plaintiffs and the defendants. The plaintiffs claimed possession and enjoyment of the property based on a patta issued under the UDR scheme, while the defendants claimed ownership through adverse possession and valid documents.
Finding of the Court:
The Courts found that the plaintiffs failed to provide valid evidence of ancestral ownership and possession, while the defendants presented documents supporting their claim of ownership through adverse possession. The Courts dismissed the plaintiffs' suit for declaration and permanent injunction.
Issues: The main issues were the validity of the plaintiffs' claim to ancestral property based on the UDR scheme patta, the defendants' claim of ownership through adverse possession, and the acceptance of boundary recitals as evidence.
Ratio Decidendi: The Courts determined that the plaintiffs' reliance on the UDR scheme patta was insufficient to establish ancestral ownership and possession. The defendants' presentation of documents supporting adverse possession was considered valid. The Courts also rejected the reliance on boundary recitals as evidence due to lack of inter-party connection and examination of relevant individuals.
Final Decision: The second appeal was dismissed, and the plaintiffs' suit was rejected with costs in favor of the defendants.
1. This second appeal has been directed against the judgment and decree dated 17.07.2000 made in A.S. No. 1 of 1999 on the file of the Additional District Court, Villupuram, confirming the judgment and decree dated 20.11.1998 passed in O.S. No. 792 of 1995, on the file of the Court of the 2nd Additional District Judge, Ulundurpet.
2. The parties are referred to as per their rankings in the trial Court.
3. Suit for declaration and permanent injunction.
4. The case of the plaintiff in brief is that the suit property is the ancestral property of one Annamalai, who died 50 years ago and after his death, his sons Sakkarai and Sappaiyan, inherited the suit property and after their life time, their legal representatives directly or through some of them are in possession and enjoyment of the suit property and the old patta number is 246 and the new patta number is 647 for the suit property and under the UDR scheme patta was granted in favour of the plaintiffs and in enjoyment of the plaintiffs. While so, the defendants who have no right or interest attempted to trespass into the suit property illegally, hence according to the plaintiffs they had been necessitated to lay the suit for appropriate reliefs.
5. The case of the defendants in brief is that the suit property belonged to Narasammal, wife of Kesavan, who is the brother of Annamalai and from her the suit property was purchased by one Vaithi under a registered sale deed dated 07.09.1943 and after his death his son and daughter inherited the suit property and been in possession and enjoyment of the suit property and they have also prescribed title to the suit property by way of adverse possession and the plaintiffs have no title in the suit property and hence, the suit is liable to be dismissed.
6. In support of the plaintiffs' case PWs 1 to 3 were examined and Exs.A1 to A9 were marked and on the side of the defendants DW1 to 3 were examined and Exs.D1 to D22 were marked.
7. On a consideration of the oral and documentary evidence adduced by the respective parties the Courts below were pleased to dismiss the suit laid by the plaintiffs. Impugning the same, the present second appeal has been preferred.
8. At the time of admission of the second appeal, the following substantial questions of law were formulated for consideration:
1. Are the Courts below correct and justified in dismissing the suit inspite of DW1's evidence, whereby title of plaintiffs ancestors is accepted?
2. Are the Courts below correct and justified in rejecting Exs.A8 and A9 on the ground that they are third parties documents when DW1 speaks to the contents of the documents, which tally?
9. According to the plaintiffs, the suit property is the ancestral property of one Annamalai and after his death, succeeded by his legal heirs, as detailed in the plaint and accordingly, recognising their title and possession of the suit property, it is the case of the plaintiffs that patta had been granted in their favour under the UDR scheme and accordingly, obtaining patta and paying kist, the plaintiffs are enjoying the suit property as full owners thereof and inasmuch as the defendants, without any title attempted to interfere with their possession and enjoyment, according to the plaintiffs, they had been necessitated to institute the suit for appropriate reliefs.
10. Per contra the defence taken by the defendants is that the suit property originally belonged to Narasammal, Wife of Kesavan and from her, one Vaithi purchased the suit property under the sale deed dated 7.9.1943. After his death, the defendants who are the legal representatives, through his son and daughter are in possession and enjoyment of the suit property and hence, the plaintiffs have no right or title to the suit property and the suit is liable to be dismissed. The defendants have also pleaded that they have prescribed title to the suit property by way of adverse possession.
11. As rightly found by the Courts below, it is found that the plaintiffs are claimi
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
