The main legal point established in the judgment is the principle of adverse possession and its application to determine property rights and limitation.

JUDGMENT

(Prayer: Appeal Suit filed under Section 96 Order 41 Rule 1 of CPC to set aside the Judgment and decree dated 26.06.2015 passed in O.S.No.9556 of 2010 on the file of the learned VI Additional Judge, City Civil Court, Chennai.)

1. The present Revision has been filed to set aside the Judgment and decree dated 26.06.2015 passed in O.S.No.9556 of 2010 on the file of the learned VI Additional Judge, City Civil Court, Chennai.

2. The brief facts of the case are as follows:-

The appellant is the defendant in O.S.No.9556 of 2010 and A.P.Rangarao and A.Mukundiah who were deceased had filed O.S.No.9556 of 2010 to direct the appellant / defendant to deliver possession of the suit property described in the schedule after removing the superstructure illegally put by the appellant / defendant and if she fails to do so, sought a direction to remove the superstructure at plaintiffs'' cost and recover it from the defendant and to pay Rs.18,000/- towards damages and continue to pay at Rs.500/- p.m., till date of delivery of possession. The present respondent, viz., Sathyavathi, is the legal heir of A.P.Rangarao. The written statement was filed by the appellant / defendant. The court below upon considering the submissions, going through the proof affidavits, documents and framing the issues, had decreed the said suit with cost by directing the appellant / defendant to deliver possession of the suit property described in the schedule after removing the superstructure put up by the appellant / defendant within three months. Further the deceased plaintiff, A.P.Rangarao was directed to file separate proceedings under Order 22 Rule 12 of CPC with regard to the relief of damages. As against the same, the present appeal suit has been filed.

3. The contention of the learned counsel for the appellant /defendant are as follows:-

(i) The suit land was in possession of one Muthu and after his death, his legal heirs, viz., Pooranadevi, Bakthavathsalam and Suhamathi sold the land to one Sadullah Basha under unregistered Sale deed dated 24.04.1982. The said Sadullah Basha and their children sold the property to one K.Sethumadhavan by sale deed dated 09.11.1983 and the said Sethumadhavan sold 2419 sq.ft., to one Saraswathi and remaining 2944 Sq.ft., of land to the appellant / defendant under sale deed dated 06.09.1984. Thereafter, the appellant / defendant constructed the house as per the legal sanction and obtained patta on the basis of registered documents. However, without going through the documents of the title produced by the appellant, Saraswathi and others, the District Collector came to a wrong conclusion and ordered the cancellation of patta.

(ii) Further, the deceased plaintiffs admitted that when the land was sold, there were some trespassers and it was also recited in the sale deed that symbolic possession was given. Also, not only the appellant, but the adjacent owners,Saraswathi and others had constructed superstructures on the land and the said Muthu, Sadullah Basha and Sethumadhavan were in possession continuously. Neither the said Denduluri Vaidiyanatha Krishnamoorthy nor his heirs took any action for recovery of possession of land. That apart, steps for recovery of possession has not been taken within the statutory period of limitation. However, the court below had not considered any of the pleadings and hence seeks to set aside the Judgment passed by the court below and allow the present appeal suit.

4. The learned counsel for the petitioner in support of his contention, has relied on the following Judgments:-

(i) Judgment of the Hon''ble Supreme Court reported in AIR (38) 1951 Supreme Court 469 [Collector of Bombay Vs. Municipal Corporation of the City of Bombay and Others]

(ii) Judgment of the Hon''ble Supreme Court reported in AIR 1970 Supreme Court 1778 [State of West Bengal Vs. The Dalhousie Institute Society]

(iii) Judgment of the Hon''b