Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADRAS
R. SUBRAMANIAN, J.
K. Kasinathan and Ors. - Appellants
Versus
N. Umasankar - Respondent
S.A. No. 389 of 2014 and MP Nos. 1 and 2 of 2014
Decided On : 20-11-2019
Registration Act – Section 49 – Transfer of Property Act, 1882 – Case of the plaintiffs is that the suit properties measuring about 2.50 acres in new survey number 79/3 of Sandoorpalayam village, Cuddalore district belonged to one Kunjan – He had sold the said property for a sum under a unregistered sale deed and delivered possession to the purchaser namely A. Dhandapani – According to the plaintiffs ever since the date of purchase the said Dhandapani was in possession and enjoyment of the suit property openly, uninterruptedly, peacefully and adverse to the interest of anyone else and he had also prescribed title by adverse possession – It is the further claim of the plaintiffs that the said Dhandapani died leaving behind the second plaintiff Thiyageswari and his children to succeed to the said property –Held, This takes us to the two other questions of law framed at the time of admission of the appeal – As far as the first question of law is concerned there is a clear pleading in the plaint itself that the other legal hairs of Dhandapani have given up their right in the suit property and only upon their no objection the revenue records have been mutated in the name of the second plaintiff – Second plaintiff along with her daughter Gayathri had sold the property to the first plaintiff under a registered sale deed – Decree for declaration of title is not one in rem but it is in personam – It would only bind the parties to the suit – Any decree granted in this suit would not be binding on the other hairs of Dhandapani who have not joined the execution of the sale deed in favour of the first plaintiff – Similarly the decree declaring the title of the second plaintiff to the remaining extent of 40 cents would only operate against defendant in this suit – Second Appeal is allowed.
Certainly. Based on the provided legal document, here are the key points:
The suit property is approximately 2.50 acres located in Sandoorpalayam village, Cuddalore district, originally owned by Kunjan, who sold it via an unregistered sale deed to Dhandapani (!) .
Dhandapani was in continuous, open, peaceful, and adverse possession of the property from the date of purchase, which the plaintiffs claim has led to title by adverse possession (!) (!) .
Dhandapani died, leaving behind the second plaintiff Thiyageswari and her children, who succeeded to the property. The second plaintiff and her daughter Gayathri subsequently sold part of the property to the first plaintiff through a registered sale deed (!) (!) .
The defendant contested the validity of the sale deed, claiming it was unregistered and thus invalid, and also challenged the claim of adverse possession, asserting that the sale was made within a restricted period and that the property was in possession of Kunjan's family after his death (!) (!) .
The trial court found that the plaintiffs proved their title, citing the unregistered sale deed and possession evidence, and held that the plaintiffs had perfected title by adverse possession (!) (!) .
The appellate court, upon review, disbelieved the authenticity of the sale deed due to alleged discrepancies and concluded that the plaintiffs did not establish adverse possession, leading to the dismissal of the suit (!) (!) .
The second appeal addressed whether the unregistered sale deed could be considered valid, considering legal provisions that require registration for transfers above a certain value, and whether adverse possession could be established based on long-standing possession independent of the sale deed's validity (!) (!) .
The court clarified that under the relevant law, transfers of immovable property of more than Rs.100/- must be registered; otherwise, they are inadmissible as evidence of title or interest (!) (!) .
The court emphasized that a sale deed executed for property valued below Rs.100/- can be valid without registration, but other instruments like settlement deeds require registration regardless of value (!) .
The court ultimately concluded that the plaintiffs had established their title through adverse possession, which was supported by consistent possession records and admissions, and that the lower appellate court's reasoning was flawed (!) (!) (!) (!) .
The court also determined that the decree for declaration of title is in personam and only binds the parties involved, meaning it does not affect other heirs who did not participate in the suit or sale (!) .
The second appeal was allowed, the lower appellate court's judgment was set aside, and the trial court's decree was restored, confirming the plaintiffs' title and possession rights (!) .
No costs were awarded, and connected miscellaneous petitions were closed (!) .
These points summarize the core legal findings and conclusions of the case, focusing on property transfer validity, adverse possession, and the binding nature of decrees.
JUDGMENT :
R. Subramanian, J.
1. The plaintiffs in O.S. No. 261 of 2009 on the file of the District Munsif, Cuddlore who succeeded in obtaining a decree for declaration of title of the first plaintiff to the first item of the suit properties and that of the second plaintiff to the second item of the suit properties and for a permanent injunction on the said decree being reversed by the Appellate court in A.S. No. 21 of 2012 have come up with this second appeal.
2. The case of the plaintiffs is that the suit properties measuring about 2.50 acres in new survey number 79/3 of Sandoorpalayam village, Cuddalore district belonged to one Kunjan. He had sold the said property for a sum of Rs.90/- on 8/8/1966 under a unregistered sale deed and delivered possession to the purchaser namely A. Dhandapani. According to the plaintiffs ever since the date of purchase the said Dhandapani was in possession and enjoyment of the suit property openly, uninterruptedly, peacefully and adverse to the interest of anyone else and he had also prescribed title by adverse possession. It is the further claim of the plaintiffs that the said Dhandapani died on 26/02/2002 leaving behind the second plaintiff Thiyageswari and his children to succeed to the said property. It is claimed that the children of the second plaintiff relinquished their interest to her and the second plaintiff has been in enjoyment of the entirety of the property absolutely. With the consent of the children the patta was also changed in her name. The plaintiffs would further contend that the second plaintiff and one of her daughters Gayathri had entered into an agreement of sale on 20/11/2007 and thereafter sold and an extent of 2 acres and 10 cents out of 2 acres 50 cents under a registered sale deed dated 11/2/2008. Upon such sale the first plaintiff has been in possession of the property conveyed to him and the second plaintiff has been in possession of the remaining 40 cents of land. Claiming that the defendant attempted to interfere with the possession of the plaintiffs setting up a claim of title under a sale deed said to have been executed by the heirs of Kunjan, the plaintiffs sought for the reliefs of declaration and injunction.
3. The suit was resisted by the defendant contending that the sale by Kunjan in favour of Dhandapani dated 8/8/1966 is not valid. The said sale being unregistered cannot confer any title on the plaintiff's predecessor in interest, Dhandapani. The claim based on adverse possession was also denied. It was his further claim that the assignment was made in favour of Kunjan in 1962 subject to the condition that he should not alienate the property within 10 years of the assignment. The sale dated 8/8/1966 having taken place within 10 years of the said assignment, according to the defendant, is invalid. This defence was however not canvassed seriously at trial. The defendant would further claim that Kunjan died about 20 years prior to the suit and after his death his wife and his daughter have been in possession and enjoyment of the property as absolute owners. Visalakshi wife of Kunjan executed a general power dated 4/12/2003 in favour of Amaravathi and the said Amaravathi sold the suit property under a sale deed dated 1/2/2008 in favour of the defendant for valid consideration. Therefore according to the defendant he alone is entitled to the suit property.
4. At trial the first plaintiff was examined as PW-1, the second plaintiff was examined as PW-2 and three other witnesses were examined on the side of the plaintiffs. Exhibits-A1 to A28 were marked. The first defendant was examined as DW-1 and Visalakshi wife of Kunjan was examined as DW-2. Exhibits B 1 to B16 were marked. On a consideration of the evidence on record the learned trial Judge found that the plaintiffs have proved their title. The learned trial Judge concluded that Exhibit-A1 sale deed dated 8/8/1966 being for a value of less than Rs. 100/-, the same does not require registration. The learned tri
SupremeToday
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
