The court affirmed that possession and familial relationships are critical in determining property rights, overruling the First Appellate Court's decision that disregarded these factors.

JUDGMENT :

(R. Sakthivel, J.)

(PRAYER: Second Appeal filed under Section 100 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, praying to set aside the Judgment and Decree dated March 26, 2019 made in A.S.No.26 of 2016 by the learned Subordinate Judge, Krishnagiri confirming the Judgment and Decree dated March 30, 2016 made in O.S.No.151 of 2013 by the learned District Munsif, Krishnagiri.)

This Second Appeal is directed against the Judgment and Decree dated March 26, 2019 passed in A.S.No.26 of 2016 by the 'Principal Subordinate Court, Krishnagiri' ['First Appellate Court' for brevity], whereby the Judgment and Decree dated March 30, 2016 passed in O.S.No. 151 of 2013 by the 'District Munsif Court, Krishnagiri' ['Trial Court' for brevity] was partly modified.

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

PLAINTIFF'S CASE

3. In the plaint it is averred that the defendant is the elder sister of the plaintiff. The Suit Property is the plaintiff’s absolute property which he purchased on February 11, 1987 for Rs.10,000/- from one Jollan of Balinayanapalli Taraf. Possession was handed over on the same day and the plaintiff has been in absolute possession and enjoyment since then. Patta No.292 was issued in his favour. Based on documents, house loan was provided by the Housing Society, Krishnagiri to the plaintiff and the same was duly discharged by him. On March 15, 2013, the defendant, who has no right or interest, attempted to trespass into the Suit Property and disturbed the plaintiff’s peaceful possession and enjoyment. Hence the Suit for declaration, permanent injunction and other reliefs.

DEFENDANT'S CASE

4. Sum and substance of the written statement filed by the defendant is that all the plaint averments, except the relationship between the parties, are wrong. The Suit Property was originally a Natham Poromboke occupied by one Jollan who later sold it to the defendant. The defendant removed the thatched shed therein and constructed a RCC house therein. She has been in continuous possession and enjoyment of the Suit Property. As the plaintiff, being her brother, demanded a separate room, the defendant obtained a loan in his name and the same was discharged by the defendant through the plaintiff. Further, while the defendant had already obtained service connection in S.C.No.23100, the plaintiff obtained another in his name. The Suit description of property is wrong and the Suit valuation is wrong. Accordingly, the defendant sought for dismissal of the Suit.

TRIAL COURT

5. At trial, plaintiff examined himself as P.W.1, one Chinnaraj was examined as P.W.2, and Ex-A.1 to Ex-A.7 were marked on the side of the plaintiff. On the side of the defendants, the defendant – Rajamma was examined as D.W.1, two other witnesses were examined as D.W.2 and D.W.3 and Ex-B.1 and Ex-B.2 were marked.

5.1. Upon hearing both sides and considering the evidence available on record, the Trial Court concluded that two houses are there in the Suit Property, in which, the plaintiff is residing in one house by paying house tax and also obtained Electricity Service Connection in his name for the same. Considering the relationship between the plaintiff and the defendant viz., brother and sister as well as the admission made by the plaintiff during the trial proceedings that he has no objection to give one house to the defendant, the Trial Court decreed the Suit except qua the thatched house in the Suit Property. The Trial Court concluded that the thatched small house in the Suit Property belongs to the defendant and the rest belongs to the plaintiff. Accordingly, declaration of title and injunction was granted in favour of the plaintiff except qua the thatched house.

FIRST APPELLATE COURT

6. Feeling aggrieved, the defendant preferred an appeal before the First Appellate Court, which after hearing both sides and perusing the documents available on record, concluded that the plaintiff alone is in possession and en