Back
S. SOUNTHAR
Lakshmanan (Died) – Appellant
Versus
Executive Engineer, Public Works Department, Madurai – Respondent
JUDGMENT :
S. SOUNTHAR, J.
Prayer: Second Appeal is filed under Section 100 of the Code of Civil Procedure against the judgment and decree, dated 25.06.1998, passed in A.S. No. 142 of 1996 on the file of Principal Sub-Court, Madurai, confirming the judgment and decree, dated 30.04.1996, passed in O.S. No. 295 of 1995 on the file of District Munsif Court, Melur.
1. The plaintiffs in the suit are the appellants. The suit was filed for declaration of title and injunction. The suit was dismissed by the trial Court and the findings of the trial Court were affirmed by the first appellate Court. Aggrieved by the concurrent findings, the plaintiffs have come by way of this Second Appeal.
2. According to the appellants/plaintiffs, the suit property was their ancestral property and they had been in possession and enjoyment of the same. It was further claimed by the plaintiffs that there was a reservoir called Periya Aruvi Reservoir on the western side of the suit property under the control of the defendants. The defendants gave out a threat from March,1995, by claiming right over the suit property and attempted to lease out the usufructs of the coconut trees standing in the suit property to thir
The court affirmed that the state can claim adverse possession, emphasizing the necessity for plaintiffs to prove their title and possession to succeed in such suits.
Claim of adverse possession requires open, continuous possession with knowledge to the rightful owner. Plaintiffs failed to provide sufficient evidence, resulting in dismissal.
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....
A claim for title by adverse possession must be clearly pleaded with specific dates and evidence of denial of the true owner's title; mere long possession is insufficient.
When there is a denial of title or a challenge raising a cloud, parties should file a suit for declaration of title, and adverse possession requires hostile possession denying the true owner's title.
to approach the Civil Court for adjudicating the title in issue and when the defendant's patta had been cancelled during 1995 merely on the production of certain electricity bills and house tax recei....
Long possession without clear evidence of hostile intent does not equate to adverse possession, and permissive possession cannot turn adverse without communication of hostility.
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
