Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
C.V. Karthikeyan, J.
Jeeva @ Ramachandran & Others – Appellants
Versus
P.K. Subramania Gramani (Died) & Others – Respondents
S.A. No. 130 of 1993
Decided On : 13-07-2022
Adverse Possession - Recovery of Possession - O.S. No. 205 of 1981 - S. Nos. 12/5, 102/1A, 102/2, 102/4, 112/1 and 15/1 - Patta No.34 - The court discussed the legal provisions related to adverse possession and the sanctity of court orders. The judgment was based on the findings of previous suits and the lack of evidence to support adverse possession claims.
Fact of the Case:
The plaintiffs filed a suit for recovery of possession of vacant land. The defendant claimed adverse possession, which was not pleaded in the written statement. The trial court decreed the suit, but the First Appellate Court allowed the appeal, claiming adverse possession. The second appeal was filed challenging this decision.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the defendant could not claim adverse possession based on the findings of previous suits and the lack of evidence to support adverse possession claims. The judgment of the First Appellate Court was set aside, and the trial court's judgment was restored and confirmed.
Issues: The issues included whether the defendant can perfect title over the suit lands by adverse possession and whether the defendant can claim adverse possession during the period when he had the benefit of an injunction restraining interference with possession.
Ratio Decidendi: The court held that the defendant could not claim adverse possession based on the findings of previous suits and the lack of evidence to support adverse possession claims. The judgment of the First Appellate Court was set aside, and the trial court's judgment was restored and confirmed.
Final Decision: The second appeal was allowed, and the judgment and decree of the First Appellate Court were set aside. The judgment and decree of the trial court were restored and confirmed.
JUDGMENT :
(Prayer: This Second Appeal is filed under Section 100 of Civil Procedure Code, against the Judgment and Decree dated 22.12.1983 on the file of the II Additional Subordinate Judge, Chengalpattu and made in A.S.No. 113 of 1983 reversing that of the District Munsif Court, Poonamallee dated 07.02.1983 and made in O.S.No. 205 of 1981.)
1. The plaintiffs/legal representatives of the plaintiffs in O.S. No. 205 of 1981 on the file of the Principal District Munsif Court, Poonamallee are the appellants herein.
2. O.S. No. 205 of 1981 had been filed for recovery of possession of vacant land measuring about 7 acres and 44 cents in S. Nos. 12/5, 102/1A, 102/2, 102/4, 112/1 and 15/1 (totally 6 items) included in patta No.34 at Paleripattur, Sriperumbur, Chengalpattu District. The suit was decreed by judgment dated 07/02.1983. Questioning that judgment, the defendant had filed A.S. No. 113 of 1983 before the II Additional Subordinate Court, Chengalpattu. By judgment dated 22.12.1983, the appeal suit was allowed, and the judgment in O.S. No. 205 of 1981 was set aside and the suit was dismissed. This necessitated the plaintiffs/legal representatives to file this second appeal. The second appeal had been admitted on the following two substantial questions of law:
2. Whether the defendant can claim adverse possession during the period when he obtained injunction in O.S. No. 587 of 1966 D.M.C. Poonamallee against the present plaintiffs which prevented them from conducting the proceedings against him for recovery of possession?”
O.S. No. 205 of 1981 (Principal District Munsif Court Poonamallee):
3. The suit was filed by the plaintiffs for recovery of possession of vacant land measuring about 7 acres and 44 cents in S. Nos. 12/5, 102/1A, 102/2, 102/4, 112/1 and 15/1 (totally 6 items) included in patta No.34 at Paleripattur, Sriperumbur, Chengalpattu District. The plaintiffs claimed that the lands are their joint family property, and that the defendant, who was the husband of the step sister of the 1st plaintiff was permitted to be in occupation, since he was a resident of that village. They claimed that he filed O.S. No. 587 of 1966 before the District Munsif Court, Poonamallee for declaration of title and for permanent injunction to protect protection. That suit was dismissed and the resultant appeal in A.S. No. 35 of 1970 was also dismissed by the Sub Court, Chengalpattu. The plaintiff alleged that the defendant indulged in committing waste to the suit land, and therefore issued notice terminating permission and then filed the suit for recovery of possession.
4. In the written statement, the defendant claimed that his father was the original owner of the lands, but that the lands were brought in auction owing to debts suffered, and that his father had provided the funds for the purchase of the lands by the father of the 1st plaintiff. He claimed to be a cultivating tenant and sought consequent protection. He urged that the suit should be dismissed.
5. The trial Court framed the following issues for trial;
2. Whether the license to be in permissive possession has been recently revoked?
3. Whether the plaintiffs are entitled to recover possession of the suit property from the defendant?
4. To what relief?”
6. During trial, the 1st plaintiff examined himself as P.W.1 and the defendant examined himself as D.W. 1. The plaintiffs marked Exs. A1 to A6. Exs A1 and A6 dated 20.01.1972 were the decree and judgment copies of A.S. No. 35 of 1970, Ex. A2 dated 21.03 1970 was the judgment copy of O.S. No. 687 of 1966 and Exs. A3 and A4 were the notices exchanged between the parties. The defendant marked Ex. B1, a marriage invitat
The main legal point established in the judgment is that adverse possession claims must be supported by evidence and cannot contradict the findings of previous suits.
When there is a denial of title or a challenge raising a cloud, parties should file a suit for declaration of title, and adverse possession requires hostile possession denying the true owner's title.
(1) Tenant cannot claim adverse possession against his landlord/lessor.(2) Second Appeal – Under Section 100 of CPC High Court cannot interfere with findings of fact arrived at by First Appellate Cou....
Adverse possession requires clear and unequivocal evidence of continuous, open, and hostile possession against the true owner's title, validly pleaded and established.
The main legal point established in the judgment is that adverse possession must fulfill the criteria of continuity, publicity, and extent, and the title acquired through adverse possession is encomp....
To establish adverse possession, the claimant must specifically plead and prove a hostile assertion of ownership, disclaiming the original title from a particular date, which was not accomplished her....
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
