Back
2020 Supreme(Mad) 1238
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
G. JAYACHANDRAN, J.
Balaraman – Appellant
Versus
Kamalam (Deceased) & Others – Respondents
Second Appeal No. 1392 of 1996 & C.M.P. No. 12054 of 1996
Decided On : 16-12-2020
For the Appellant :T. Sathiyamoorthy, Advocate
The plaintiff's failure to prove her right for recovery of possession due to lack of substantial evidence and the 10 years delay in filing the suit after specific denial of title rendered the suit unsustainable.
Headnote:
Property Dispute - Immovable Property - Civil Procedure Code - Section 100 - O.S.No.112 of 1992 - A.2, A.3, B.1, B.2, B.3, B.4, B.5 - The court discussed the ownership of the suit property, the defendant's possession and title, the plaintiff's right to recovery of possession, and the evidence presented by both parties. The court found that the plaintiff failed to prove her right for recovery of possession due to lack of substantial evidence and dismissed the suit with costs throughout.
Fact of the Case:
The suit involved a dispute over an immovable property in Pondicherry. The plaintiff claimed ownership and sought recovery of possession and damages from the defendant, who contested the plaintiff's ownership and claimed prescriptive title to the property.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the plaintiff failed to adduce substantial evidence to prove her right for recovery of possession. The court also noted the lack of clarity in the property description and the 10 years delay in filing the suit after specific denial of title, leading to the dismissal of the suit with costs throughout.
Issues: The issues included the ownership of the suit property, the defendant's prescriptive title, the plaintiff's right to recovery of possession, and the delay in filing the suit.
Ratio Decidendi: The court held that the plaintiff's failure to prove her right for recovery of possession, the lack of clarity in the property description, and the 10 years delay in filing the suit after specific denial of title rendered the suit unsustainable.
Final Decision: The Second Appeal was allowed, and the judgment of the trial Court as well as the lower appellate Court were set aside. The suit for recovery of possession was dismissed with costs throughout.
Based on the provided legal document, the key points are as follows:
-
The suit involved a dispute over an immovable property situated in Pondicherry, with the plaintiff claiming ownership and seeking recovery of possession along with damages. The defendant contested ownership and claimed prescriptive title [judgement_subject][fact_of_the_case].
-
The plaintiff relied on a sale deed dated 28.01.1961 to establish ownership, but the courts found the description of the property in the plaint to be vague and lacking specific measurements and boundaries. The description of the "A" and "B" schedule properties was not precise enough for effective recovery (!) (!) (!) .
-
The courts noted that the plaintiff failed to prove her right to recover possession due to a lack of substantial evidence, especially regarding her possession and the defendant’s wrongful occupation. The evidence did not establish her continuous possession or clear title during the relevant period (!) (!) .
-
The defendant contended that he and his ancestors had been in possession of the property for over 120 years, relying on tax receipts and birth certificates as evidence of long-standing possession, and claimed prescriptive title. The courts acknowledged the evidence of long possession but emphasized that the defendant did not prove exclusive or hostile possession for the statutory period necessary for prescriptive title (!) (!) .
-
The delay of approximately 10 years between the defendant’s denial of the plaintiff’s title and the filing of the suit was a significant factor. The courts held that this delay, combined with the lack of a declaration of title or proper description of the property, rendered the suit unsustainable and possibly mala fide (!) (!) .
-
The courts observed that the plaintiff did not adequately explain the delay in filing the suit after receiving the defendant’s denial and did not seek a declaration of title, which was necessary given the disputed ownership. The absence of such relief and the vague property description further undermined the suit’s viability (!) (!) .
-
The courts highlighted that the description of the property in the plaint was insufficiently specific, lacking measurements and clear boundaries, which is essential for executing a recovery of possession. This fundamental infirmity contributed to the dismissal of the suit (!) (!) .
-
The appellate courts found that the burden of proof regarding possession was improperly placed on the defendant, and that the defendant’s denial of title at the earliest opportunity was not properly considered. The courts emphasized that the defendant’s long-standing possession was not conclusively hostile or adverse, and thus did not automatically establish prescriptive rights (!) (!) .
-
Ultimately, the Supreme Court held that the plaintiff failed to produce sufficient evidence to establish her ownership or her right to recover possession, especially given the lapse of time, lack of clear property description, and absence of a declaration of title. The suit was therefore dismissed, and the judgments of the lower courts were set aside (!) (!) .
-
As a result, the second appeal was allowed, and the suit for recovery of possession was dismissed with costs throughout. The connected civil miscellaneous petition was also closed (!) .
These points encapsulate the core legal reasoning and factual findings from the case, emphasizing the importance of clear property description, timely filing, and proof of continuous and hostile possession to establish prescriptive title or recovery rights.
JUDGMENT :
(Prayer: Second Appeal has been filed under Section 100 of the Civil Procedure Code against the judgment and decree dated 19.10.1995 made in A.S.No.70 of 1993 on the file of the Court of the Principal District Judge, Pondicherry, confirming the judgment and decree dated 30.04.1993 made in O.S.No.112 of 1992 on the file of the Court of the Principal District Munsif, Pondicherry.)
(The case has been heard through Video Conferencing)
1. This Second Appeal is filed by the defendant in the suit, being aggrieved by the decree passed against him by the trial Court and the same being confirmed by the first appellate Court.
2. The subject matter of the suit is the immovable property situated in the village of Saram commune in Pondicherry bearing Survey No.248/2 cad and Nos.4370, 4372/1, 4373 paimash. The suit filed for delivery of “B” schedule property which is part of “A” schedule property with description as mentioned above.
3. According to the plaintiff, one Gopal Naicker was the absolute owner of the “A” schedule property. The plaintiff purchased from him on 28.01.1961 and enjoying the same as absolute owner. The “B” schedule property is the portion of “A” schedule property, which was let out to the defendant. Possession was given to the defendant on 01.02.1970 with permission to put up superstructure on it. After June 1980, the defendants wilfully failed to pay the rent. The well in the property was closed by the defendant causing damage to the property. On 28.02.1982, the plaintiff terminated the tenancy and called upon the defendant to vacate and handover the vacant possession of “B” schedule property on before 01.03.1982. The defendant failed to handover the property. Hence the suit for delivery of possession and recovery of damages.
4. The suit was resisted by the defendant stating that the plaintiff is not the owner of the suit property and the defendant is not a lessee under the plaintiff. The averment that the plaintiff was receiving rent from the defendant till June 1980 and the defendant closed the well causing damage to the property are not true. Initially one Ramasamy, the grand father of the defendant was residing in the suit property, after his death Angalagan, the father of the defendant was in possession in the suit property. After the death of Angalagan, the defendant continue to reside in the suit property. The defendant got prescriptive title in the suit property. The electricity connection in the suit property was obtained 25 years ago in the name of his uncle Munisamy. The plaintiff’s vendor Gopal Naicker had no right to sell the suit property to the plaintiff. The documents dated 28.01.1961 is a fabricated document.
5. Based on the pleadings, the trial Court has framed the issues as below:-
1. Whether the plaintiff is the absolute owner of the suit property?
2. Whether the defendant has perfected title to the suit property through prescription?
3. Whether the defendant has perfected title to the suit property under the plaintiff?
4. Whether the defendant has defaulted in paying rents and has also caused damages to the suit property?
5. Whether the plaintiff is entitled for eviction of the defendant from the suit property?
6. Whether the plaintiff is entitled for the recovery of arrears of rent?
7. To what relief is the plaintiff entitled?
6. The plaintiff who was represented by his Power Agent examined as PW.1 and two other witnesses by name Ponnukrishnan and the other Selvam as PW.2 and PW.3. On behalf of the defendant, the defendant examined himself as DW.1. Three exhibits for the plaintiff and five exhibits for the defendant were marked. Ex.A-2 is the sale deed dated 28.01.1961. The plaintiff has purchased the suit property through the notarial sale deed. The extract of the register of the transaction to prove the notarial sale marked as Ex.A-2. Quit notice dated 22.01.1982 issued by the plaintiff through her lawyer to the defendant is marked as Ex.A-3.
7. To controvert the case of the plaintiff, the defendant
