Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
N. ANAND VENKATESH, J.
G. Nagaiyan & Another - Appellant
Versus
K. Palanivel - Respondent
Second Appeal No. 125 of 2014 & MP. No. 1 of 2014 & CMP No. 3572 of 2022
Decided On : 29-03-2022
Trespass - Property Dispute - Code of Civil Procedure - Section 100 - 11/3B, 11/2A - The court discussed the ownership and possession of 'A' and 'B' schedule properties and the disputed 'C' schedule property. The court analyzed the findings of the Advocate Commissioner's report and the surveyor's sketch, and concluded that the 'C' schedule property did not form part of the 'A' and 'B' schedule properties. The court also considered the respondent's conduct in a previous suit where he claimed that the 'C' schedule property had been acquired by the Government, and held that the respondent could not claim any right or title over the 'C' schedule property. The court upheld the lower courts' decision to dismiss the suit with respect to the 'C' schedule property.
Fact of the Case:
The plaintiffs sought permanent injunction and delivery of vacant possession of 'A' and 'B' schedule properties, claiming ownership. The defendant disputed the claim and asserted ownership of the 'C' schedule property. The suit was dismissed with respect to the 'C' schedule property.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the 'C' schedule property did not form part of the 'A' and 'B' schedule properties, and the plaintiffs failed to substantiate their right over the property. The court also held that the respondent could not claim any right or title over the 'C' schedule property.
Issues: Ownership and possession of 'A', 'B', and 'C' schedule properties, the respondent's conduct in a previous suit, and the sufficiency of the plaintiffs' pleadings and evidence.
Ratio Decidendi: The court applied the principle of approbate and reprobate, holding that the respondent's conduct in a previous suit precluded him from claiming any right or title over the 'C' schedule property. The court also emphasized the importance of clear and detailed pleadings as required under Order VII Rule 3 of CPC.
Final Decision: The Second Appeal was dismissed, and the Judgment and Decree of both the Courts below were sustained. The suit with respect to the 'C' schedule property was rejected/dismissed.
JUDGMENT
(Prayer: Second Appeal filed Under Section 100 of the Code of Civil Procedure against the Judgment and Decree of the learned III Additional District and Sessions Judge, Tiruvallur at Poonamallee dated 22.3.2013 and passed in A.S.No.28 of 2011 confirming the findings and decision rendered in the judgment and decree dated 1.12.2009 passed by the learned Subordinate Judge, Poonamallee, in O.S.No.228 of 2008.)
1. The plaintiffs are the appellants in this Second Appeal.
2. The plaintiffs filed the suit seeking for the relief of permanent injunction restraining the defendants from in any manner trespassing or interfering into the plaintiff’s peaceful possession and enjoyment of the suit ‘A’ and ‘B’ schedule properties. The plaintiffs sought for a further relief of delivery of vacant possession of the ‘C’ schedule property after directing the defendants to remove the super structures.
3. The case of the plaintiffs is that they are the absolute owners of the suit properties. The plaintiffs claimed that the suit properties originally belonged to one Mrs. Rukmini Ammal and she in turn sold the property measuring an extent of 4 1/6 cents in Survey.No.11/3B (Part) to one Mrs. Seethalakshmi Ammal under a registered sale deed dated 13.10.1965. The said Seethalakshmi Ammal sold the property to one Nandakumar under a registered sale deed dated 15.10.1975. The said Nandakumar sold the portion of the property to the 1st plaintiff. Insofar as the other portion of the property is concerned, Rukmini Ammal sold 8 cents in Survey.No.11/2A and the remaining portion in Survey.No.11/3B to one Sreedhar under a registered sale deed dated 29.4.1964. The said Sreedhar sold the property to the plaintiffs. This property has been described as Item No.2 in the suit schedule.
4. The further case of the plaintiffs is that the vendor of the plaintiffs had properties which were adjacent to each other and they jointly sold half of the properties on the southern side in favour of the 1st plaintiff through a sale deed dated 29.4.1981. The whole of this property is described as the ‘A’ schedule property. Similarly, a separate sale deed was executed by the vendors on 29.4.1981 for the remaining half of their properties and this property is described as the ‘B’ schedule property. After the purchase of the respective share, the 1st and 2nd plaintiffs claimed that they have been issued separate patta for the ‘A’ and ‘B’ schedule properties respectively.
5. The grievance of the plaintiffs at the time of filing this suit was that the defendant with the help of his men, attempted to trespass over the ‘A’ and ‘B’ schedule properties by removing the fencing that was put up by the plaintiff. A police complaint was also lodged in this regard. It is with this cause of action, the suit came to be filed in the year 1994 before the District Munsif Court, Poonamallee. At the time of filing the suit, the suit properties comprised of only ‘A’ and ‘B’ schedule properties.
6. The present suit kept moving from one Court to another due to change in territorial jurisdiction. Hence, the suit that was filed in the year 1994 before the District Munsif Court, Poonamallee was transferred to District Munsif Court, Ambathur and it was re-numbered as O.S. No. 230 of 1996. Once again, the suit was transferred to Sub-Court Poonamalle and re-numbered as O.S. No. 228 of 2008. It is quite unfortunate that it took nearly 14 years for the suit to ultimately settle down and it is only thereafter that effective proceedings commenced.
7. In the meantime, an Advocate Commissioner came to be appointed on 10.6.1994 by the District Munsif at Poonamalle and he filed the report which was marked as Ex.A14. The Advocate Commissioner was also examined as PW2. Based on his report, an amendment came to be made by the plaintiffs in the year 2009 wherein the ‘C’ schedule property was also added to the suit schedule and the necessary averments were made in the plaint at para 9 (a) and the plaintiffs also sought for the r
The principle of approbate and reprobate, and the importance of clear and detailed pleadings as required under Order VII Rule 3 of CPC.
The plaintiff must prove ownership and encroachment claims effectively; mere possession does not suffice without credible evidence.
Courts affirmed the principle that lack of exclusive rights over property precludes unauthorized construction, validating the injunction against encroachment.
The courts affirmed that ownership through valid title and continuous possession determines property rights, emphasizing that plaintiffs must assert declarations before counter-claims can be adjudica....
The burden of proof lies on the party asserting the affirmative issue, and adverse possession requires the party to set up their own adverse title and remain in exclusive possession hostile to the tr....
First appellate courts must thoroughly review evidence and provide reasoned judgments; failure to do so necessitates remanding cases for reevaluation.
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
