Back
N. ANAND VENKATESH
Pazhamalai – Appellant
Versus
Muruganandam – Respondent
JUDGMENT
(Prayer: Second Appeal filed under Section 100 of the Code of Civil Procedure, to set aside the decree and judgment made in AS No.24 of 2010 dated 30.10.2013 passed by the Subordinate Judge, Ariyalur, by reversing the decree and judgment in O.S.No.133 of 2001 dated 19.01.2010 passed by the District Munsif Court, Jayankondam.)
1. The defendant is the appellant in this Second Appeal.
2. The respondent/plaintiff filed a suit seeking for the relief of declaration of title and permanent injunction with respect to the 1st item of the suit property and for the relief of mandatory injunction with respect to the 2nd item of the suit property.
3. The case of the plaintiff is that his mother Povunammal, purchased a property measuring an extent of 5½ cents on 3.6.1972 from one AzhagaPadayatchi and this document was marked as Ex. A1. The further case of the plaintiff is that the property was measured with the boundaries described in Ex.A1 document and it was found that the total extent of the property was 9 cents. Thereafter, the plaintiff purchased the excess 3½ cents in Survey No. 246/1 from the legal heirs of Mottayapadayatchi on 13.11.1997 and this document was marked as Ex.A2.
4. The f
The principle of nemo dat quod non habet applies, emphasizing the burden of proof on the plaintiff to establish title in a property dispute.
The plaintiff's establishment of ownership to a high degree of probability shifted the onus to the defendant, leading to the plaintiff's burden of proof being deemed discharged. The suit was maintain....
A party claiming title must prove the vendor's title; assumptions or gaps in evidence are insufficient to establish ownership.
The central legal point established in the judgment is the shift of burden to the defendants to prove lack of possession and title when the plaintiffs have established continuous possession and title....
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.
A suit for injunction is maintainable without a declaration of title when the title is not disputed, and survey boundaries are conclusive proof unless modified by a court.
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
