Back
BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT
R. VIJAYAKUMAR, J.
S. Arunachalam(died) & Others – Appellants
Versus
C. Shanthakumar – Respondent
REV.APLC(MD)No. 6 of 2023 in SA(MD).No. 725 of 2009
Decided On : 01-06-2023
Review Application - Declaration of Title - The court dismissed a review application seeking to review a judgment and decree regarding the declaration of title, recovery of possession, and permanent injunction. The court found that the defendant's claim of adverse possession was not proven, as the defendant had not admitted the title of the plaintiff, and the property tax receipts submitted were not sufficient to establish adverse possession.
Fact of the Case:
The plaintiff filed a suit for declaration of title, recovery of possession, and permanent injunction, which was dismissed by the trial court. The First Appellate Court allowed the appeal and decreed the suit. The second appeal filed by the defendant was dismissed by the court.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the defendant's claim of adverse possession was not proven, as the defendant had not admitted the title of the plaintiff, and the property tax receipts submitted were not sufficient to establish adverse possession. The court also rejected the review petitioner's reliance on judgments from the Hon'ble Supreme Court, stating that no error apparent had been pointed out which would alter the final outcome of the second appeal.
Issues: The issues involved the claim of adverse possession by the defendant and the review petitioner's attempt to re-argue the second appeal under the guise of a review petition.
Ratio Decidendi: The court held that the defendant's claim of adverse possession was not proven, as the defendant had not admitted the title of the plaintiff, and the property tax receipts submitted were not sufficient to establish adverse possession. The court also emphasized that unless an error apparent is pointed out which would result in changing the final outcome of the appeal, the court will not invoke Order 47 Rule 1 C.P.C.
Final Decision: The review application was dismissed, and no costs were awarded.
JUDGMENT
(Prayer: Review Application filed under Order XLVII Rule 1 of CPC r/w. Section 114 of CPC, to review the judgment dated 10.08.2022 made in S.A.No.725 of 2009 on the file of this Hon''ble Court Judgment confirming the judgment and decree dated 06.04.2009 made in A.S.No.83 of 2008 on the file of the II Additional Subordinate Court, Nagercoil reversing the judgment and decree dated 28.04.2008 made in O.S.No.565 of 2006 on the file of the Principal District Munsif, Nagercoil.)
The review petition has been filed seeking to review the judgement and decree of this Court dated 10.08.2022 made in S.A(MD).No.725 of 2009.
2. The respondent in the said appeal had filed O.S.No.565 of 2006 before the Principal District Munsif Court, Nagercoil for declaration of title, recovery of possession and permanent injunction not to alter the physical features of the property. The said suit was dismissed by the trial Court.
3. On appeal, the First Appellate Court was pleased to allow the appeal and decreed the suit. As against the same, the second appeal was filed by the defendant which was dismissed by this Court on 10.08.2022.
4. The plaintiff had claimed title on the basis of Exhibit A1-registered sale deed dated 17.11.1989 which stands in the name of his father. The plaintiff had also relied upon Exhibit A1 Will under which the plaintiff''s father had bequeathed the suit schedule property in favour of the plaintiff. Both these documents have not been specifically disputed in the written statement. The only contention of the defendant is that he is in possession of the property right from the days of his father and hence, he has acquired title by adverse possession.
5. In paragraph No.14, this Court has found that the defendant having not admitted the title of the plaintiff, the question of seeking adverse possession as against the plaintiff would not arise. This Court has considered two property tax receipts filed on the side of the defendant namely Exhibits B1 and B2 and came to a finding that they are of the year 1995 and the suit having filed in the year 2006, even the said plea of adverse possession has not been proved.
6. The learned counsel for the petitioner had contended that Exhibits B1 and B2 referred to the payment of property tax for the period from 01.04.1994 to 31.03.1995 and therefore, the said document should not have been considered to be the document of the year 1995. However, I am not in agreement with the said submissions, in view of the fact that the document is dated 31.03.1995. That apart, when the defendant has not admitted the title of the plaintiff, the question of seeking adverse possession as against the plaintiff would not arise either by referring to Exhibit B1 or B2.
7. The learned counsel for the review petitioner had relied upon the judgment of the Hon''ble Supreme Court reported in (2006) 7 SCC 570 (T.Anjanappa and others Vs. Somalingappa and another) to contend that only when the title is expressly and impliedly denied, the question of adverse possession would arise. The learned counsel had further relied upon another judgement of the Hon''ble Supreme Court reported in (2014) 2 SCC 269 (Union of India and others Vs. Vasavi Co-operative Housing Society Limited and others) to contend that in a suit for declaration, the burden is always lies upon the plaintiff and the decree cannot be granted for declaration based upon the weakness of the defendant.
8. The above said submissions raised on the side of the review petitioner does not fall within the purview of the error apparent on the face of the record. The review petitioner is attempting to re-argue the second appeal under the guise of review petition. Unless an error apparent is pointed out which would result in changing the final out come of the appeal, this Court will not be a position to invoke Order 47 Rule 1 C.P.C.
9. In the present case, no error apparent has been pointed out which is likely to alter the final out come of the second appeal. Therefore, the subm
A review is limited to correcting apparent errors in the record, not a re-evaluation of the case, reaffirming that findings must strike readily without extensive reasoning.
Title claims and adverse possession are contradictory; plaintiffs must establish the timeline of possession with clear and consistent evidence to prevail in claims of adverse possession.
The main legal point established in the judgment is the requirement to prove continuity and publicity of possession for adverse possession claims, as well as the necessity of a registered instrument ....
(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....
The judgment emphasizes the legal principles of adverse possession, including the requirements of open, clear, continuous, and hostile possession, burden of proof, and the need for a substantial ques....
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....
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.
A claimant must prove continuous, public, and exclusive possession for adverse possession; mere possession or an unregistered agreement does not confer title.
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
