Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation

2024 Supreme(Mad) 932

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE R.SUBRAMANIAN AND THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE R.SAKTHIVEL
Smt.Mamutha Bai (Deceased) – Appellant
Versus
G.Ramakrishnan – Respondent
OSA NOS.251 AND 258 OF 2015 AND M.P.NOS.1 AND 1 OF 2015 IN CMP NO.6385 OF 2022
Decided on : 03-04-2024

Advocates:
Advocate Appeared:
For the Appellants : Ms.AL.Ganthimathi Senior Counsel for M/s.L.Palanimuthu, Mr.P.R.Raman Senior Counsel for Mr.J.Suresh
For the Respondent: Mr.S.Mahaveer Shivaji, Mr.P.R.Raman Senior Counsel for Mr.J.Suresh, Ms.AL.Ganthimathi Senior Counsel for M/s.Meenakshi Ganesan

IMPORTANT POINT
The Benami Transactions (Prohibition) Act, 1988 bars claims of benami ownership, and adverse possession requires clear evidence of hostile possession, which must be specifically pleaded and proven.

Headnote:
PROPERTY DISPUTE - OWNERSHIP AND POSSESSION - Transfer of Property Act, 1882; Benami Transactions (Prohibition) Act, 1988; Specific Relief Act, 1963; Registration Act, 1908; Income Tax Act, 1961 - The court analyzed the validity of the sale deed under the Transfer of Property Act, confirming the plaintiff's ownership. It rejected the defendants' claims of benami ownership under the Benami Transactions (Prohibition) Act, 1988, emphasizing that such claims are barred by law. The court also addressed issues of adverse possession, concluding that the defendants failed to prove their claim, as their possession was permissive and lacked the necessary animus to claim ownership. The court upheld the plaintiff's title and dismissed the appeals.
Fact of the Case:
The plaintiff filed a suit seeking a declaration of ownership and possession of a property purchased in 1963, claiming it was solely his after his sister's death. The defendants, who had been living in the property as tenants, contested the suit, asserting that the property was held in benami for their father and that they had acquired title through adverse possession.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the sale deed was valid and established the plaintiff's ownership. It ruled that the defendants' claims of benami ownership were barred by the Benami Transactions (Prohibition) Act, 1988, and that they failed to prove adverse possession, as their possession was permissive and lacked the necessary intent to claim ownership.
Issues: 1. Whether the plaintiff is the sole owner of the property? 2. Whether the defendants have perfected title by adverse possession? 3. Whether the suit is maintainable despite the non-joinder of necessary parties?
Ratio Decidendi: The court held that the sale deed executed in favor of the plaintiff and his sister was valid and established their ownership. The plea of benami was not available to the defendants due to the prohibition under the Benami Transactions (Prohibition) Act, 1988. The court also emphasized that adverse possession requires clear evidence of hostile possession, which the defendants failed to provide.
Final Decision: The appeals were dismissed, affirming the plaintiff's ownership and the validity of the sale deed, while rejecting the defendants' claims of benami ownership and adverse possession.

JUDGMENT :

R.SAKTHIVEL, J.

PRAYER: Original Side Appeal filed under Order XXXVI Rule 1 of Madras High Court Original Side Rules and Clause 15 of Letters Patent, praying to set aside the judgment and decree dated 11.02.2015 in C.S.No.633 of 2011 and allow the present Original Side Appeal.

By this common judgment, the following appeals are being disposed of.

(i) OSA No.251 of 2015 preferred by the legal representatives of the second defendant (D2) in C.S.No.633 of 2011.

(ii) OSA No.258 of 2015 preferred by the first defendant (D1) in C.S.No.633 of 2011.

2. For the sake of convenience, henceforth, the parties will be referred to as per their array in the Suit.

3. Feeling aggrieved with the judgment and decree dated February 11th, 2015 passed by the Hon'ble Single Judge of this Court in Civil Suit No.633 of 2011, D1 and D2 have preferred these appeals under Order XXXVI Rule 1 of Original Side Rules read with Clause 15 of Letters Patent, praying to set aside the judgment and decree passed therein.

Plaintiff's case

4.1. The Civil Suit has been filed by the plaintiff seeking (a) the relief of declaration that the plaintiff is the sole and absolute owner of the suit property located at 18/1 & 2, Soodiammanpet, Saidapet, Chennai– 600 015; (b) direction to deliver vacant possession of the suit property; and (c) mesne profits at the rate of Rs.30,000/- per month from the date of filing the suit.

4.2. The plaintiff was working as an 'Examiner' in the City Civil Court, Chennai and thus, had some self-earnings. The plaintiff purchased the suit property out of his self-earned money jointly in his name and his sister, G.Saraswathi's name, on 'either or survivor' basis on October 28th, 1963, vide Document No.3204 of 1963 (Ex-P.2) on the file of Sub-Registrar Office, Thiyagaraya Nagar from one T.Narasimhalu Chettiar. The plaintiff's vendor, T.Narasimhalu Chettiar, was a prisoner at that point of time and therefore, his wife/Power Agent, has sold the property.

4.3. After purchase, the plaintiff, along with his sister, had sold back a small piece of land in the backyard of the suit property along with right of pathway to his vendor, Narasimhalu Chettiar, on June 28th, 1972 vide Document No.885 of 1972 on the file of Thiyagaraya Nagar SRO (Ex-P.3).

4.4. The plaintiff's sister, G.Saraswathi, passed away in the year 1985 and hence, the plaintiff has become the absolute owner of the suit property as per the 'either or survivor' clause. After the purchase, the plaintiff was the sole bread winner of the family and he lived along with his family members including D1 and D2, in the suit property. Since the plaintiff was working in the City Civil Court and his brothers did not have proper employment at that time, the plaintiff was supporting them.

4.5. The plaintiff, on oral agreement allowed the defendants to stay in a portion of the suit property on a monthly rental basis from the year 1980 onwards. Due to his work and other personal reasons, the plaintiff shifted his family in the year 1980 from the suit property to a rented premises in 8-D, MIG Flats, MKB Nagar, Vyasarpadi, Chennai – 600 039 and the defendants continued to be a tenant by paying some nominal rent to the plaintiff. After the demise of the plaintiff's mother in the year 2001 and immediately after retirement of the plaintiff from service, he orally requested the defendants to hand over the possession of the property for his own occupation. The defendants requested time till 2004, but did not keep up their promise. Then the defendants refused to vacate the property and went to the extent of denying the title of the plaintiff.

4.6. The plaintiff came to know that the defendants were fraudulently concocting documents in their names. Then the plaint