Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
G.JAYACHANDRAN
Govindan, S/o. Krishnan – Appellant
Versus
N.Thulasingam, S/o.Nataraja Boopathi – Respondent
JUDGMENT :
G.JAYACHANDRAN, J.
The suit is filed for declaration and possession was allowed by the trial Court. Hence, the aggrieved defendants are before this Court through Appeal Suit.
2. The averments in the plaint are as below:-
Rajambalambal @ Rasambalambal is the paternal grandmother of the plaintiff. She settled the suit property in favour of the plaintiff and his brother Krishnamoorthy through a registered settlement deed dated 03.01.1957. At that time, both the beneficiaries were minors hence their father Nataraja Boopathi was appointed as guardian. Rajambalambal died on 24.05.1967. Krishnamoorthy, the brother of the plaintiff died on 19.06.1962. The plaintiff attained majority in the year 1969. The plaintiff's father died on 21.03.1985. After attaining majority, the plaintiff is in exclusive possession and enjoyment of the property. In the year 1990, the 1st defendant, a distant relative of the plaintiff was engaged by the plaintiff for constructing a house at Cuddalore. The 1st defendant and his family members were permitted to stay in the suit property and supervise the construction work. Even after completion of construction, the 1st defendant and his family continued in po
Adverse possession requires open, continuous, and hostile possession; permission negates hostile claim. The court ruled against the defendants, affirming the plaintiff's ownership of the property.
(1) Recovery of possession – Limitation – Suit based on title where plea of adverse possession had not been raised could not be barred by limitation on ground that it was filed after more than 12 yea....
The judgment emphasizes the legal principles of adverse possession, including the requirements of open, clear, continuous, and hostile possession, burden of proof, and the need for a substantial ques....
In property disputes, once a plaintiff proves title, the burden shifts to the defendant to establish adverse possession; failure to do so results in the plaintiff's claim being upheld.
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....
Point of Law : It is trite that court while considering an application under Order VII Rule 11 CPC is required to consider contents of plaint and documents relied upon by plaintiff whereas defence di....
Adverse possession requires clear evidence of hostile intent and exclusive possession, which was not established in this case; mere possession or entries in revenue records do not suffice to claim ad....
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
