Back
2024 Supreme(Mad) 1468
BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT
S.SOUNTHAR, J.
S.K.Subramanian – Appellant
Versus
Nelliappa Asari(died) – Respondent
S.A.NO.1306 of 2003 and C.M.P.No.11299 of 2003
Decided on : 30-07-2024
Advocate Appeared
For the Appellants : Mr.S.Meenakshisundaram Senior Counsel for Mr.R.Manimaran
For the Respondents: Ms.V.T.Harshini, for Mr.D.Nallathambi
IMPORTANT POINT
Adverse possession requires clear evidence of hostile possession, which was not established by the defendants in this case.
Headnote:
Property - Title Dispute - Civil Procedure Code Section 100 - The court analyzed the partition deed and evidence of possession, affirming the lower courts' findings that the plaintiffs retained title and possession over the disputed property, rejecting the defendants' claim of adverse possession.
Fact of the Case:
The plaintiffs filed a suit for declaration of title and injunction against the defendants, who claimed adverse possession over a property allotted to the plaintiffs under a partition deed. The trial court ruled in favor of the plaintiffs, which was upheld by the appellate court.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the plaintiffs proved their title and possession over the disputed property, and the defendants failed to substantiate their claim of adverse possession with sufficient evidence.
Issues: Whether the defendants had perfected title over the disputed property by adverse possession and whether the lower courts erred in their findings.
Ratio Decidendi: The court held that mere possession without adequate evidence of adverse possession does not confer title, and that revenue documents do not establish ownership.
Result: The Second Appeal is dismissed.
JUDGMENT :
PRAYER: Second Appeal filed under Section 100 of Civil Procedure Code against the judgment and decree made in A.S.No.22 of 2002, dated 11.4.2003, on the file of Additional Sub-Court, Tenkasi confirming the judgment and decree made in O.S.No.87 of 1998, dated 2.1.2002, on the file of Principal District Munsif Court, Tenkasi.
The Second Appeal is directed against the judgment and decree made in A.S.No.22 of 2002, dated 11.4.2003, on the file of Additional Sub-Court, Tenkasi confirming the judgment and decree made in O.S.No.87 of 1998, dated 2.1.2002, on the file of Principal District Munsif Court, Tenkasi.
2. The defendants are the appellants. The suit is for declaration of title, permanent injunction and mandatory injunction. The suit was decreed by the trial Court and on appeal, the findings of the trial Court was affirmed by the First Appellate Court. Aggrieved by the concurrent findings of the Courts below, the defendants have come forward with this Second Appeal.
3. According to the respondents/plaintiffs, the suit first schedule property was divided among the first plaintiff, his brothers Karuppiah Asari, and Subbiah Asari under Ex.A1 Partition Deed. The first plaintiff was allotted with 1 acre and 86 cents on the northern side. Karuppiah Asari was allotted with 1 acre and 86 cents on the middle portion and Subbiah Asari was allotted with 1 acre and 86 cents on the southern most portion. The common well situate in the middle portion was kept as a common well for all the three parties. The Plaintiffs 2 to 4 are the sons of the first plaintiff. The defendants are the heirs of Karuppiah Asari, who was allotted with middle portion. The property allotted to the first plaintiff which situate on the northern side of suit first schedule property is shown as second schedule property. The property allotted to the defendants predecessor in interest Karuppiah Asari in the middle portion was shown as third schedule property. The property allotted to Subbiah Asari on the southern portion was shown as fourth schedule property. The dispute considering the land situated on the southern extremity of the second schedule property abutting third schedule property has been shown as fifth schedule property. The suit second schedule property was gifted to the plaintiffs 2 to 4 by the first plaintiff by Gift Deed, dated 14.5.1984. In the year 1977, there was dispute between the parties regarding irrigation of water from the common well. The defendants attempted to interfere with the plaintiffs possession over the property situate on the western and eastern side of the common well. In this regard, a Police complaint was given by the plaintiffs 2 to 4 against the defendants 1 to 7. Only during the enquiry in the Police Station, the Plaintiffs acquired knowledge about the issuance of patta in favour of defendants in respect of their property shown as third schedule property which forms part of second schedule property allotted to the plaintiffs under second schedule. Immediately, the plaintiffs moved the Revenue Officials for correction of the revenue records and an order was also passed for inclusion of the plaintiffs name in the patta. The defendants 1 to 7 issued a legal notice to the plaintiffs claiming right over the suit fifth schedule property. Later, the defendants obliterated the ridge portion dividing the suit second schedule property allotted to the plaintiffs and the suit third schedule property allotted to the defendants in the earlier partition. Therefore, the plaintiffs were constrained to file the suit for the above said reliefs.
4. The suit was resisted by the defendants by denying the right as well as possession of the plaintiffs over the suit fifth schedule property. It was asserted by the defendants that the suit fifth schedule property has been in their possession and enjoyment for more than the statutory period with patta in their name. It was also claimed that the sub-division of suit survey number had been made and issua
