Back
N. ANAND VENKATESH
M. Narayanasamy Munthadi – Appellant
Versus
N. Kuppan – Respondent
JUDGMENT
(Prayer: Second Appeal filed under Section 100 of the Code of Civil Procedure to set aside Judgment and decree dated 28.08.2015, made in A.S.No.22 of 2013, on the file of Subordinate Judge, Tiruttani in reversing the well considered Judgment and decree dated 30.09.2011 made in O.S.No.188 of 2007, on the file of District Munsif Court, Tiruttani by allowing the present second appeal.)
1. The defendants are the appellants in the Second Appeal.
2. The first respondent/plaintiff filed a suit seeking for the relief of declaration of title and permanent injunction.
3. The case of the plaintiff is that the first item of the suit property was purchased from one Vajeeravelu Reddi through a registered sale deed dated 19.04.1995, marked as Ex.A.1. The second item of the suit property was purchased from one Sembeti Muniammal through a registered sale deed dated 24.04.1995, marked as Ex.A.2. According to the plaintiff, the total extent of both the properties put together measures nearly 7 acres.
4. The further case of the plaintiff is that he became the absolute owner of the suit properties and Patta was also granted in the name of the plaintiff and the plaintiff is also paying the kist for
The plaintiff must prove the title over the suit property and cannot succeed based on the weakness of the defendant's case. The procedure for entertaining additional evidence must be followed, and pr....
The burden of proof lies on the plaintiff in a suit for declaration of title, and failure to establish exclusive title can result in dismissal of the claim.
The principle of nemo dat quod non habet applies, emphasizing the burden of proof on the plaintiff to establish title in a property dispute.
A party claiming title must prove the vendor's title; assumptions or gaps in evidence are insufficient to establish ownership.
A plaintiff must provide clear and specific evidence of property ownership, including boundaries, to succeed in a claim for declaration and injunction.
The plaintiff must prove title on their own strength, and the burden of proof lies on the party claiming adverse possession.
The court emphasized the importance of establishing valid title and possession in property disputes, and upheld the lower courts' decisions based on the proper appreciation of evidence.
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
