Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
R.Pongiappan, J.
Velu - Appellant
Vs.
Kousalya - Respondent
S.A. No.1082 of 2011 and M.P. No.1 of 2011
Decided On : 04-01-2022
Sale Deeds - Seeking the relief of declaration - Plaintiff had purchased 1st and 2nd item of suit schedule property from one and others vide registered Sale Deed - After made purchase, plaintiff, is in possession and enjoyment of suit schedule property - As plaintiff and her predecessors in title were in enjoyment and possession over suit schedule property for more than a prescribed period of 12 years, they are entitled for prescriptive title by adverse possession - Till date, both schedule properties, are in possession and enjoyment of plaintiff - First and second defendants have got property in West of 1st item of schedule property and North of 2nd item of schedule property - By virtue of their possession over nearby schedule property, defendants are trying to encroach upon schedule property and same was managed by plaintiff - Now, defendants again attempted to encroach suit schedule property - Whether first Appellate Court's finding is correct in granting a decree for declaration and injunction in respect of 2nd item of suit schedule property only on basis of revenue records but not on basis of any title deeds. Para 19.
Finding of the Court: Applying principle set out in referred case, to case on hand, as rightly pointed out by learned counsel for appellants, here is case, plaintiff after suppressing some material facts approached Court for the relief of declaration - It is easy for her to trace out Sale Deeds stands in name of her predecessors - Instead of tracing the same, after suppressing those vital Deeds, which are all stands in her predecessor's name, filed this case and said situation creates a doubt over the plaintiff's case - Accordingly, court are of the opinion that plaintiff failed to prove her case in respect to 2nd schedule of property - Substantial questions of law are all answered affirmatively in favour of appellants/defendants - In fine, this Second Appeal is allowed and judgment and decree made in A.S. on file of Principal District Court, is hereby set aside - seeking the relief of declaration.
Result: Appeal allowed.
JUDGMENT :
The present appeal is directed against the judgment and decree dated 07.04.2011 passed in A.S.No.126 of 2010 on the file of the learned Principal District Judge, Villupuram.
2. The respondent in this appeal filed the suit in O.S.No.97 of 2006 on the file of the learned Principal District Munsif, Ulundurpet, seeking the relief of declaration, declaring that the plaintiff, is the absolute owner of the suit schedule property and for consequential injunction. By judgment and decree dated 29.07.2009, the learned Principal District Munsif, Ulundurpet, partly allowed the suit, in respect to the 1st item of the suit schedule property.
3. Challenging the same, the plaintiff/respondent preferred an appeal in A.S.No.126 of 2010, wherein the Principal District Court, Villupuram, by judgment and decree dated 07.04.2011, allowed the appeal and ultimately, the suit filed by the plaintiff was decreed in its entirety. Being dissatisfied with the said findings, the defendants 1 and 2 are before this Court with the present Second Appeal.
4. The parties, for convenience sake, are referred to hereunder according to their litigative status before the trial Court.
5. The laconic averments made in the plaint, are as follows:
(ii) The first and second defendants have got property in West of the 1st item of the schedule property and North of the 2nd item of the schedule property. By virtue of their possession over the nearby schedule property, on 01.03.2006, the defendants are trying to encroach upon the schedule property and the same was managed by the plaintiff. Now, the defendants again attempted to encroach the suit schedule property. Hence, the suit.
6. The case of the second defendant, as averred in the written statement, is as follows:
(ii) The properties situated at Pidagam Village in S.No.281/2, consists of 3.00 acres and the property in S.No.283/3 consists of 0.76 cents, totally 3.76 cents originally belonged to one Thalaiverichan, Thalaiverichan has got 3 sons, namely, Muruvan, Kulla Padayachi and Chinnathambi. After the demise of Thalaiverichan, his 3 sons partitioned the property at 1.25 cents each. The share begot by Chinnathambi lies in S.No.281/2A2. After Chinnathambi, his son Palani succeeded the property and he, in turn, sold the property to one Pokkalai Ammal, by registered Sale Deed dated 16.03.1942.
(iii) Pokkalai Ammal died leaving her husband Periyathambi Padayachi, as her legal heir. Masi Padayachi, is the son of Pokkalai Ammal and Periyathambi Padayachi. Masi Padayachi sold the said 1.25 cents to one Kaliya Padayachi by a Sale Deed dated 12.02.1959. The plaintiff's predecessor one Krishnaveni, is the wife of Kaliya Padayachi. Vijaya, Govindan and Venkatesan were the children of Krishnaveni and Kaliya Padayachi. They were actually in enjoyment of 1.25 cents derived from Masi Padayachi. Therefore, the legal representatives of Kaliya Padayachi would have actually sold 1.25 cents to the plaintiff but they
In property disputes, plaintiffs must establish ownership through authoritative title documents, not solely through revenue records.
In property disputes, the burden of proof lies on the plaintiff to establish title, and mere possession does not confer ownership.
The title of a vendor must be established to support a claim of ownership over property, where mere possession is inadequate under property law.
The burden to prove title in a property dispute lies with the plaintiff, requiring evidence such as a registered sale deed, even when seeking alternative relief of possession.
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
