Back
R. SAKTHIVEL
Joseph – Appellant
Versus
Susairaj – Respondent
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 April 15, 2019 passed in A.S. No. 49 of 2018 on the file of the Court of Subordinate Judge, Chidambaram reversing the Judgment and Decree dated July 17, 2018 passed in O.S. No. 113 of 2007 on the file of the Court of District cum Judicial Magistrate, Kattumannarkoil, and restore the Judgment and Decree of the Trial Court by allowing the Second Appeal.
1. This Second Appeal is directed against the Judgment and Decree dated April 15, 2019 passed in A.S. No. 49 of 2018 by the ‘Subordinate Court, Chidambaram’ [henceforth ‘First Appellate Court’ for the sake of brevity], wherein and whereby the Judgment and Decree dated July 17, 2018 passed in O.S. No. 113 of 2007 by the ‘District Munsif cum Judicial Magistrate Court, Kattumannarkoil’ [henceforth ‘Trial Court’ for the sake of brevity] was reversed.
2. For the sake of convenience, hereinafter, the parties will be referred to as per their array in the Original Suit.
PLAINTIFFS’ CASE
3. The first plaintiff is the son of one Michael. Plaintiff Nos. 2 to 4 are said Michael’s pre-deceased
Long-standing possession supported by revenue records can establish entitlement to property, negating the need for a formal declaration of title.
A permanent injunction can be granted against a co-owner if the plaintiffs establish their possession and enjoyment of the property, despite the defendant's claims.
Possession established by parties through revenue documents prevails over contested ownership claims; mere sale deed insufficient to negate established rights.
Possession – Revenue records - If someone claims title by virtue of their long possession, such possession should be evidenced through valid pattas and other continuous revenue records standing in th....
The court affirmed that the Suit Property is a Natham Pathway, granting plaintiffs limited injunction against obstruction until defendants prove their title.
The First Appellate Court correctly reversed the trial court's decree due to insufficient evidence from the plaintiffs to establish title over the suit property.
The judgment establishes that continuous possession and proper documentation can affirm ownership, while claims of adverse possession require clear evidence and specific pleading.
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
