Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
M.M. SUNDRESH, R.N. MANJULA, JJ.
Shuddhawaita Vaishnav, Maha Sabha (Regd.) – Appellant
Versus
The Commissioner, Corporation of Chennai and Others – Respondents
O.S.A. No. 257 of 2014, M.P. No. 1 of 2014
Decided On : 10-08-2021
Limitation Act - Articles 65 and 64 - Letters Patent Appeal Order XXXVI Rule 9 of the Original Side Rules r/w Clause 15 - Consequential reliefs in respect of the suit ‘B’ schedule properties. – Seeking compensation - decree - Whether the finding of the learned single Judge that the plaintiff is not entitled to get the decree for declaration and other consequential relief in respect of the properties is fair and proper - Whether plaintiff is entitled to claim title to” schedule properties by prescription of title by adverse possession - Suit by the plaintiff is that the plaintiff is a Society under Tamil Nadu Society Registration Act, 1975 and its object is to promote education to all and to do other charitable services. verifying its title a sale price of paid; patta stood in name of the vendors and they were paying the property tax; after the purchase, the plaintiff was also paying all tax and other revenue charges and continued to be in possession and enjoyment of the property - Respondent Corporation demanded the appellant to earmark the boundaries for T.S. - Defendants started to interfere with the peaceful enjoyment of the appellant/ plaintiff – Held, appellant/plaintiff in this petition has claimed title only by virtue of his purchase and not by adverse possession - In order to claim a title by prescription due to adverse possession one has to accept the title of the original owner and prove that he has been in un-interrupted possession of property adverse to the interest of the original owner and to his knowledge, but without his objection for more than the statutory period - Appellant has not admitted the title of 1st respondent Corporation. Further, he cannot claim any accrual of right by adverse possession against the properties which are dedicated for public cause - Person holding an imperfect title can not pass a perfect title to his alienee - Appellant/plaintiff has received the notice issued by 1st respondent/1st defendant to demarcate the property the appellant has also complied the same and reported to Corporation - By such compliance also the appellant/plaintiff has impliedly accepted the claim of the 1st respondent/1st defendant - Having done so, he is estopped from questioning the title of 1st respondent/1st defendant by filing a suit - Learned single Judge has appreciated the evidence on record in a correct perspective and arrived at a conclusion that appellant/plaintiff is not entitled to get a decree for declaration in respect of suit ‘B’ schedule properties and hence the judgment of learned Single Judge does not warrant any interference - Appeal in O.S.A. No. 257 of 2014 is dismissed
JUDGMENT :
R.N. MANJULA, J.
Prayer: This Original Side Appeal filed under Order XXXVI Rule 9 of the Original Side Rules r/w Clause 15 of Letters Patent, praying to set aside the judgment and decree dated 25.07.2014 made in C.S. No. 154 of 2008 and thereby allow the Original Side Appeal by granting the reliefs claimed therein.
1. This Original Side Appeal has been filed against the judgment and decree passed in C.S. No. 154 of 2008, dated 25.07.2014.
2. The unsuccessful plaintiff is the appellant herein. The suit is filed for various reliefs including declaration with an alternate prayer for compensation and other consequential reliefs in respect of the suit ‘B’ schedule properties. After completion of the trial and after hearing both sides, the learned Single Judge has dismissed the suit. Aggrieved over that, the plaintiff has filed this appeal.
3. The brief facts which led to the suit by the plaintiff is that the plaintiff is a Society under the Tamil Nadu Society Registration Act, 1975 and its object is to promote education to all and to do other charitable services. The School by name Sri. Shuddadwaita Vaishnav Higher Secondary School was run by the Society for more than 60 years at No. 30, Ekambareswarar Agraharam Street, Chennai and another School by name Balmandir Higher Secondary School was run at Samudra Mudali Street, Sowcarpet, Chennai. Since this School was situated in a busy area at Sowcarpet, it could not be expanded further. Hence the said School was also shifted to Ekambareshwarer Agraharam Street, temporarily.
3.1 In order to accommodate the schools permanently, the Society purchased an extent of 5 grounds 2050 sq. ft. in T.S. Nos. 18, 19, 20 and 21/1 on 01.07.2005; after verifying its title a sale price of Rs. 1,00,87,548/- was paid; patta stood in the name of the vendors and they were paying the property tax; after the purchase, the plaintiff was also paying all tax and other revenue charges and continued to be in possession and enjoyment of the property; electricity connection was also obtained in the said property; as the plaintiff intended to construct a Primary School in T.S. No. 21/1, the society applied for a planning permission; on receiving the same, the second defendant sent a letter on 27.11.2007 by stating that the lands in T.S. Nos. 18, 19 and 20 belong to the Corporation of Chennai; thereafter the first respondent Corporation demanded the appellant to earmark the boundaries for T.S. No. 21/1. The defendants started to interfere with the peaceful enjoyment of the appellant/ plaintiff, the first respondent cancelled the assessment of property tax that stood in the name of the appellant; without minding the objections raised by the appellant/plaintiff, the respondents 1 to 4 had put up a compound wall for the property lying in T.S. Nos. 18, 19 and 20 by dividing them from T.S. No. 21/1; hence the plaintiff has filed the suit for declaration that he is the absolute owner of the B-Schedule property and mandatory injunction and other consequential reliefs.
4. The averments made in the statement of the first respondent/first defendant is that lands in T.S. Nos. 18, 19 and 20, in Block No. 6 at Aminjikarai Village belongs to the Corporation of Chennai; the Town Survey Register extract also stands in the name of the Chennai Corporation; earlier a Patta has been wrongly issued by the Tahsildar in the names of private persons. After due enquiry, the District Collector, Chennai had cancelled those Patta and restored it to the name of the Corporation; the appellant also filed an application for planning permission to start a construction in T.S. Nos. 18, 19, 20 and 21/1. On inspection, it was found that the appellant/plaintiff are entitled only to a small portion of the land in T.S. No. 21/1 alone and hence the planning permission was rejected; the plaintiff had purchased the property from the vendors who did no
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
