Back
2018 Supreme(Mad) 2231
BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT
M. SUNDAR, J.
A. Balusamy & Anr. - Appellants
Vs.
V. Muthulakshmi - Respondent
A.S. (MD) No. 12 of 2010
Decided On : 03-08-2018
Advocate Appeared:
For the Appellants : Mr. R. Anand
For the Respondent: Mr. V. Ramakrishnan
The court emphasized the importance of analyzing evidence to determine sale consideration and the plea of limitation, and highlighted the requirement of animus possidendi for adverse possession.
Headnote:
Property Dispute - The Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 - [Section 96] - [Article 65 of the Limitation Act, 1963] - [O.S. No. 98 of 2008] - [Ex.A.1, Ex.A.2, Ex.A.3, Ex.A.4, Ex.A.5, Ex.A.6, Ex.A.7, Ex.A.8, Ex.A.9] - The court analyzed the sale deed, notices, and oral evidence to determine the sale consideration and the plea of limitation. The court found that the sale consideration was Rs.1,50,000 and the suit was not barred by limitation. The judgment and decree of the trial court were confirmed.
Fact of the Case:
The plaintiff purchased a house property from the defendants and later filed a suit for recovery of possession. The defendants claimed a higher sale consideration and argued that the suit was barred by limitation.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the sale consideration was Rs.1,50,000 and the suit was not barred by limitation. The court also noted that the possession of the defendants did not become adverse to that of the plaintiff.
Issues: 1. Whether the sale consideration was Rs.1,50,000 and the suit was not barred by limitation? 2. Whether the possession of the defendants became adverse to that of the plaintiff? 3. Whether the trial court was correct in decreeing the suit as prayed for?
Ratio Decidendi: The court analyzed the sale deed, notices, and oral evidence to determine the sale consideration and the plea of limitation. The court found that the sale consideration was Rs.1,50,000 and the suit was not barred by limitation. The court also noted that the possession of the defendants did not become adverse to that of the plaintiff.
Final Decision: The appeal was dismissed, confirming the judgment and decree of the trial court.
More than 24 years ago, one V. Muthulakshmi purchased a house property and that is the genesis of this litigation.
2. It is necessary to chronicle the facts of this case in the sequence in which they unfurled, for better appreciation of this judgment.
3. Chronicle of Facts :
(A) Preface :
(a) V. Muthulakshmi (wife of K. Veluchamy) purchased a house property from A. Balusamy and his spouse B. Vasantha vide registered sale deed dated 13.07.1994 (Ex.A.1). This house property is land admeasuring 1183 square feet or thereabouts together with superstructure thereon at plot No.23, Door No.45 B/1, Kannadasan Street, Muthukumarasamy Nagar, Somasundaram Colony, Ponmeni village, Madurai South Taluk, Madurai District. The description of this house property as contained in plaint is as follows :
“DESCRIPTION OF THE PROPERTY
Madurai District, Arasaradi Sub-District within Corporation limit, Madurai South Taluk, Ponmeni Village, Somasundaram Colony, Muthukumarasamy Nagar, Kannadasan Street, Northern side of R.S.No.43/1 B Plot No.23 and door No.45 B/1 the house property bounded by
North : East West Road
South : Lourdhusamy's House
East : Plot No.22, belongs to Govindan
West : Plot No.24, belongs to Moideen Pitchai
within the boundaries East, Wests on both sides 26' South and North on both sides 45'6” the total 1183 sq.feet Borewell, letrine, doors, windows, electric connections and fittings.”
The aforesaid house property shall hereinafter be referred to as 'suit property' for the sake of brevity, convenience and clarity.
(b) This instant appeal under Section 96 of 'The Code of Civil Procedure, 1908' (hereinafter referred to as 'CPC' for brevity) arises out of a judgment and decree dated 09.12.2009 made in O.S. No. 98 of 2008 on the file of the 'I Additional District Judge's Court, Madurai' (hereinafter referred to as 'trial court' for the sake of convenience and clarity). The sole respondent before me, i.e., V. Muthulakshmi is the sole plaintiff before the trial court. Appellants 1 and 2 before me, i.e., A. Balasamy and B. Vasantha respectively are defendants 1 and 2 respectively before trial court. In this judgment, parties are referred to by their respective ranks in the trial court for the sake of convenience and clarity.
(B) Chronicle :
(a) Defendants who are spouses were owners of the suit property. As mentioned supra, plaintiff purchased the suit property from defendants under registered sale deed dated 13.07.1994 (Ex.A.1). It is the case of the plaintiff that the total sale consideration is Rs.1,50,000/-, that at the time of execution of Ex.A.1, defendants handed over all anterior title deeds for the suit property to the plaintiff, that defendants requested the plaintiff to give one month time to them to vacate the suit property, that defendants requested the plaintiffs to permit them to stay in the suit property for a period of one months (upto the expiry of Tamil month 'Aadi') in order to enable them to search for a new house for their dwelling, that plaintiff believing the defendants permitted them to stay in the suit property for one month post sale. It is the further case of plaintiff that even after a lapse of one month, defendants did not vacate and hand over the suit property, though plaintiff and her husband approached defendants in this regard several times.
(b) Therefore, plaintiff sent a notice through lawyer dated 19.01.1996 (Ex.A2), inter-alia calling upon defendants to vacate and hand over vacant possession of the suit property. Defendants sent a reply notice through lawyer dated 5.2.1996 (Ex.A.3). The crux of the reply is that the total sale consideration is Rs.5,00,000/-, plaintiff paid only Rs.1,50,000/-, plaintiff also agreed to pay Rs.3,50,000/- separately and agreed that defendants can continue to remain in the suit property till the sum of Rs.3,50,000/- is paid.
(c) According to plaintiff, the total sale consideration is only Rs.1,50,000/- as contained in Ex.A.1 sale deed and according to plaintiff, Rs.5,00,000/- conside
