The appellate court reaffirmed that ownership claims based on adverse possession are invalid when prior leasehold rights are acknowledged, confirming the plaintiff's title over the property.

JUDGMENT :

The appellant has filed this appeal against the Judgment and decree dated 09.08.2016 passed in O.S.No.5223 of 2013 by the learned XVIII Additional City Civil Judge, Chennai.

2. For the sake of convenience, the parties herein are referred to as they were ranked in the original suit.

3.The appellant is the plaintiff in suit O.S. No. 5223 of 2013 on the file of the XVIII Additional City Civil Court, Chennai. As the plaintiff, he filed a suit against eight defendants, seeking relief for the delivery of vacant possession of the suit property after the removal of the superstructure at their cost. He also sought a declaration that he is the absolute owner of the suit property as per the sale deed, Document No. 3574 of 2018, along with a permanent injunction and other consequential reliefs.

4. The plaintiff claims ownership of the land, excluding the superstructure, based on his purchase from his vendor, the 8th defendant, 2\22 through a sale deed dated 05.12.2008. However, defendants 1 to 7 dispute the plaintiff's right and title, asserting that the plaintiff’s vendor had no ownership over the property. They contend that, since 1935, the mother-in- law of the 1st defendant, Fathimabevi, owned and possessed the suit property, having derived title over the land through a lease executed by K.S.Nagappa and Sons. She paid rent until 1950, after which no one demanded rent for the land. Consequently, they claim to have been in absolute, continuous, and uninterrupted possession and enjoyment of the land.

5. Defendants further state that Fathimabevi initially constructed a thatched shed on the land and later executed a settlement deed in favor of her son, Sarthar Khan, through Registered Document No. 691/1979. A rectification deed was subsequently executed to correct certain errors, registered as Document No. 112/1982.

6. Upon the death of Sarthar Khan, his legal heirs, defendants 1 to 7, inherited the rights conferred under the settlement deed. They later removed the thatched structure and constructed a superstructure with the knowledge 3\22 of the predecessors-in-title, the 1st defendant enjoyed the suit property, asserting hostile ownership against the titleholder. Consequently, the 1st defendant claims to have perfected title through adverse possession against the plaintiff and his predecessors.

7. Further, Defendants 1 to 7 submit that ownership of the superstructure, with property tax assessed in their names as per the findings in O.S. No. 5223 of 2013, the 1st defendant was declared the absolute owner of the superstructure along with leasehold rights over the property at Door No. 114, Parthasarathy Road. However, the plaintiff is now claiming ownership of both the land and the superstructure based on his purchase. The defendants argue that such a claim is not valid, as no notice of transfer of ownership was issued to them. Additionally, they contend that the plaintiff’s vendor and the vendor’s predecessor had no right or title to convey the property to the 8th defendant and that the property description in the sale deed is incorrect. Accordingly, they prayed for the dismissal of the suit.

8. Before the trial court, both parties presented oral and documentary evidence. On the plaintiff's side, plaintiff was examined as P.W.1 and Ex.A1 to Ex.A26 were marked. On the defendants' side, 1st defendant was examined as D.W.1 and Ex.B1 to Ex.B.3 were marked.

9. Upon considering the evidence on record, the learner trial judge framed six issues for determination, and observed that there had already been previous suits O.S. No. 5867 of 2008 and O.S. No. 4701 of 2008 filed by defendants 1 to 7 against the legal heir of Kannappa Mudaliar, the 8th defendant Mohammed Ismail, and the present plaintiff. In O.S. No. 5867 of 2008, defendants 1 to 7 sought a declaration that the sale deed in favor of the 8th defendant, concerning the superstructure, was null and void. In O.S. No. 4701 of 2008, the 1st defendant sought a permanent injunction restraining th