Back
V. LAKSHMINARAYANAN
Pazhaverkadu Venkataswamy Gramani Trust – Appellant
Versus
S. Paul (Died) – Respondent
JUDGMENT :
V. LAKSHMINARAYANAN, J.
1. The present second appeal arises out of the judgment and decree of the court of IV Additional City Civil Judge at Chennai in A.S.No. 79 of 2010 dated 23.08.2011 in confirming the judgment and decree of the court of XII Assistant City Civil Judge at Chennai in O.S.No. 1803 of 2007 dated 17.10.2008.
2. For the sake of convenience, the parties will be referred to as per their ranks in the suit.
3. O.S.No. 1803 of 2007 is a suit filed by a public charitable trust. The case of the plaintiff is that it was formed by one Venkataswamy Gramani and is being administered pursuant to a scheme decree of this Court in CS.No. 221 of 1951. The plaintiff is represented by its hereditary trustee. The trustee and the committee members have been appointed by the High Court, pursuant to the aforesaid decree.
4. The plaintiff trust has properties at Mylapore, Tondiarpet, Thiruvallur, Vembanur and Kadapakkam. It performs both Hindu and Muslim festivals. The plaintiff trust performs daily poojas at Valleeswarar Temple in Mylapore, and also Brahmotsavam at Veeraraghavaswamy Temple at Thiruvallur, and Allah Sami Peeligoondu Procession at Mannadi at Chennai.
5. It is the case
A scheme decree is binding and establishes title; mere possession does not equate to ownership, and a plaintiff must prove superior title to recover possession.
A decree in rem under a scheme governs property rights and binds all parties, establishing that mere occupation does not negate the superior title claimed by a trust.
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.
The jurisdiction of the Civil Court to entertain a suit for declaration of title and recovery of possession is not barred by the grant of patta under the Inam Abolition Act, and the appellant must pr....
A concurrent finding of facts affirmed by appellate courts must be based on evidence; mere possession without title does not confer rights against established ownership.
Continuous possession does not confer title without a clear assertion of adverse ownership in the face of the true owner's claim.
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
