Back
2018 Supreme(Mad) 2015
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
T.RAVINDRAN, J.
Narayanasamy Gounder - Appellant
Vs.
Mainavathi & Ors. - Respondents
S.A.No.2084 of 2004
Decided On : 28-08-2018
For the Appellant : Mrs. V.Srimathi
For the Respondents: Mr. S.Parthasarathy, SC for M/s. Sarvabhauman Associates
The legal principle established is that a claim of possessory title based on adverse possession must be supported by sufficient evidence, and challenges to ownership must be substantiated with valid proof.
Headnote:
Adverse Possession - Property Dispute - Assignment of Land - Possessory Title - Patta - Second Appeal
Fact of the Case:
The plaintiff claimed possessory title to the suit properties based on adverse possession. The defendants contested, providing evidence of assignment of land and subsequent ownership. The trial court decreed the suit, but the first appellate court dismissed it. The Second Appeal challenged the first appellate court's decision.
Finding of the Court:
The plaintiff's claim of possessory title based on adverse possession was not sustainable as the patta documents and Kist receipts provided as evidence were insufficient. The defendants established their ownership through assignment of land and subsequent transactions. The plaintiff's attempt to challenge the defendants' case was not accepted.
Issues: Validity of plaintiff's claim of possessory title, consideration of trial court's findings, proof of fraud in obtaining patta, presumption of fraud in absence of evidence
Ratio Decidendi: The plaintiff's claim of possessory title based on adverse possession was not sustainable due to insufficient evidence. The defendants' evidence of assignment of land and subsequent ownership was accepted. The plaintiff's attempt to challenge the defendants' case was not considered.
Final Decision: The Second Appeal was dismissed, upholding the first appellate court's decision to negate the plaintiff's claim of possessory title and ownership.
In this Second Appeal, challenge is made to the judgment and decree dated 11.06.2004 passed in A.S.No.112 of 1997 on the file of the Principal District Court, Thiruvannamalai, reversing the judgment and decree dated 29.08.1997 passed in O.S.No.594 of 1990 on the file of II Additional District Munsif Court, Thiruvannamalai.
2. The parties are referred to as per the rankings in the trial court.
3. Suit for declaration and permanent injunction.
4. According to the plaintiff, the suit properties had been in the possession and enjoyment of the plaintiff's family for well over 30 years from the days of his father Ezhumalai Gounder openly, continuously, and uninterruptedly beyond the statutory period and accordingly, it is stated that the plaintiff and his predecessors in interest had been enjoying the suit properties by paying Kists etc., to the Government and accordingly, recognizing their possession, the plaintiff had been issued patta in respect of the suit properties and accordingly, it is stated by the plaintiffs, the defendants without any right or title to the suit properties are unlawfully claiming the right over the suit properties and thereby attempting to take over the possession of the same from the plaintiff and hence according to the plaintiff, he has been necessitated to lay the suit for appropriate reliefs.
5. The case of the defendants in brief is that after denying all the allegations put forth in the plaint, stated that the land in survey No.44/1, 3.44 acres of land situated at Mangalam village was originally a poramboke land belonging to the Government and one Narayanasami, S/o, Ayyamperumal occupied the same, which included items 1 and 2 of the suit properties several decades ago and enjoying the same by paying penal tax etc., and accordingly the above said Narayanasami applied for the grant of assignment in respect of the above said land in his favour and the Government after considering all the aspects, granted the assignment in favour of the above said Narayanasami and since then, it is only Narayanasami, who has been in possession and enjoyment of the above said property in his own right, by paying Kists due to the Government and exercising all the ownership and Narayanasami died intestate in 1972 leaving behind his wife Sengamalam @ Alagammal and son Kannan to succeed to the above said property and his LR's became the absolute owners of the above said property and enjoying the same and the patta for the above said property was later transferred in favour of Sengamalam @ Alagammal and taking advantage of the assignment granted in favour of Narayanasami and taking advantage of the absence of Sengamalam @ Alagammal and Kannan from the suit village, they had been enjoying the above said property with the help of hired agricultural laborers, it is stated that the plaintiff by making a false representation that he is the assignee to the above said land and manoeurred and procured the patta under the updating registry scheme without the knowledge of the real owners namely Sengamalam @ Alagammal and Kannan and without any notice being sent to them and hence the grant of patta for the items 1 and 2 of the suit properties in favour of the plaintiff is invalid and void and the plaintiff has never been in the possession and enjoyment of the above said properties as well as the remaining suit properties and the claim of the plaintiff that they have prescribed title to the suit property by way of adverse possession is false and baseless. Out of 3.41 acres in suit survey No.44 /1 which includes items 1 and 2 of the suit properties Sengamalam @ Alagammal sold the southern 0.41 acres to one Kuppan S/o, Ammavasai by way of a registered sale deed dated 03.11.1989 and delivered the possession and the first defendant purchased the northern 3 acres in the above said survey number from Sengamalam @ Alagammal by way of a registered sale deed dated 19.02.1990 and obtained possession and since then it is only the first defenda
