Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
T. RAVINDRAN, J.
Swaminathan - Appellants
Versus
M. Rajamani - Respondent
S.A.No.2049 of 2004
Decided On : 14-08-2018
Challenge - Suit for declaration, possession and mandatory injunction - Limitation Act, 1963, Article 65 - Adverse possession - Title to the suit property - Acquiescence - Estoppel - Patta - Oral partition - Second Appeal
Fact of the Case:
The plaintiff claimed ownership of a property and filed a suit for declaration, possession, and mandatory injunction, alleging that the defendants unlawfully trespassed and encroached on a portion of the property. The defendants contended that the suit was not maintainable, claimed adverse possession, and disputed the plaintiff's title to the property.
Finding of the Court:
The first appellate court decreed the suit in favor of the plaintiff, finding that the plaintiff had established title to the property and the defendants had failed to prove adverse possession or their claim of title. The court also found that the defendants' patta had been canceled and the plaintiff's possession had been recognized. The second appeal challenging the first appellate court's decision was dismissed, upholding the findings in favor of the plaintiff.
Issues: The issues included the sustainability of the suit in light of the Limitation Act, the validity of the defendants' claim of adverse possession, and the plaintiff's title to the property. The court also considered the cancellation of patta and the alleged oral partition.
Ratio Decidendi: The court held that the plaintiff had established title to the property, the defendants had failed to prove adverse possession, and the cancellation of the defendants' patta was valid. The court also found that the alleged oral partition was not proven, and the defendants' claim of title was solely based on a rough patta, which was subsequently canceled.
Final Decision: The second appeal was dismissed, affirming the first appellate court's decree in favor of the plaintiff.
1. Challenge in this Second Appeal is made to the judgment and decree dated 31.10.2003 passed in A.S.No.15 of 2002 on the file of the Principal District Court, Dharmapuri at Krishnagiri reversing the judgment and decree dated 28.11.2001 passed in O.S.No.28 of 1998 on the file of the District Munsif cum Judicial Magistrate Court, Uthangarai.
2. The parties are referred to as per the rankings in the trial court.
3. Suit for declaration, possession and mandatory injunction.
4. The case of the plaintiff in brief is that the plaintiff has filed a plan along with the plaint and the suit property originally belonged to Santham Poosari and his three sons and been enjoyed by them by obtaining patta, paying Kists, house tax, electricity charges etc., and all were standing in the name of Santham Poosari and the plaintiff had purchased the same from Santham Poosari and others by way of a registered sale deed dated 29.04.1994 and since then, it is only the plaintiff, who has been in possession and enjoyment of the suit property by obtaining patta, paying tax, electricity charges etc., and the suit property has been described as “ABCD” in the plaint plan and the defendants own property on the western side and also own property on the southern side of the suit property, however the defendants are not entitled to any portion of the suit property shown as “ABCD” in the plaint plan and also not in possession and enjoyment of the same lawfully. While so, when the plaintiff was out of station, the defendants without any authority, unlawfully trespassed into a portion of the suit property shown as “DEFG” in the plaint plan and put up a wall on the same and started using the said portion as a backyard and on coming to know of the same, the plaintiff requested the defendants to remove all the encroachments put up by them in the suit property and also lodged a complaint against them before Police and Revenue authorities and also to the elders of the village and however the defendants in the meanwhile raised a superstructure in the encroached portion and accordingly, the defendants were directed to surrender the encroached portion to the plaintiff after demolishing the superstructure put up by them and on the other hand, the defendants had refused to do so and hence left with no other alternative, 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 the suit laid by the plaintiff is not maintainable either in law or on facts. After denying the plaint averments as put forth in the plaint, according to the defendants, after the death of the father of the first defendant, he and his brothers Santham Poosari and Nadupaiyan @ Mari Gounder were enjoying the ancestral properties jointly for some time which includes the suit property and later about 35 years ago, there was an oral partition in the joint family and the patta for the suit property in survey No.163/3C, though the same is also the ancestral property, stood in the name of Santham Poosari as such, as he happened to be the eldest member of the family and in the oral partition above stated, the western portion of the suit survey No.163/3C fell to the share of the first defendant along with the thatched hut and there is a dividing ridge between the share of the plaintiff and the first defendant in the suit survey number and it is incorrect to state that Santham Poosari alone enjoyed the suit survey number and on the other hand, Santham Poosari and his brothers including the first defendant were enjoying the same till the oral partition and later as per the oral partition, the first defendant is enjoying the western portion and Santham Poosari was enjoying the eastern portion and accordingly the suit survey No.163/3C was subdivided as 163/3C1 and 163/3C2 and to the first defendant's share, survey No.163/3C2 was given and to the share of Santham Poosari, 163/3C1 was given and accordingly, the portions lying in
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
