Back
BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT
MR.JUSTICE V.SIVAGNANAM, J
Pappayee Ammal (died) – Appellant
Versus
Ammaiyappan – Respondent
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. plaintiff claims title (Para 13 , 14 , 15 , 16) |
| 2. court discusses evidence (Para 17 , 18 , 19 , 20 , 21 , 22 , 23) |
| 3. court's reasoning on possession (Para 24 , 25 , 26 , 27) |
| 4. second appeal dismissed (Para 28 , 29) |
JUDGMENT :
V.SIVAGNANAM, J.
The Second Appeal has been filed against the Judgment and Decree passed in A.S.No.53 of 2002 dated 22.04.2003 on the file of the Principal District Court, Karur reversing the Judgment and Decree passed in O.S.No.539 of 1998 dated 20.02.2002 on the file of the Principal District Munsif, Karur.
2. For the sake of convenience, the parties are referred to as per their ranking in the Trial Court in O.S.No.539 of 1998 on the file of the Principal District Munsif, Karur.
3. The plaintiffs in O.S.No.539 of 1998 on the file of the Principal District Munsif, Karur, are the appellants herein.
4. The averments of the plaint are as follows:
The suit property is situated at Puliyur village. The plaintiff purchased the suit property on 11.04.1974 from one Nallammal, K.Muthausamy and his son Thagavel, minor son Elango and the minor daughter of Nallammal by name, Arukkani. The original sale deed is pledged with the Bank and the xerox copy is filed
Long possession alone does not establish adverse possession; clear evidence of hostile intent against the rightful owner is required.
The judgment establishes that continuous possession and proper documentation can affirm ownership, while claims of adverse possession require clear evidence and specific pleading.
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....
The court upheld that a mere sale agreement without a registered deed does not confer title, and continuous possession under such agreement is considered permissive, not adverse.
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
