Back
BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT
S.SOUNTHAR
Kalimuthu (Died) – Appellant
Versus
Thangaiah (Died) – Respondent
JUDGMENT :
S. SOUNTHAR, J.
1. The Second Appeal is filed against the judgment and decree made in A.S.No.32 of 1998, dated 28.4.2000, on the file of Additional District Judge-cum-Chief Judicial Magistrate, Pudukkottai, reversing the judgment and decree made in O.S. No. 1169 of 1988, dated 14.07.1997, on the file of Additional District Munsif, Pudukkottai.
2. The plaintiff in a suit for declaration of prescriptive title and injunction is the appellant. The suit was decreed by the trial Court only in respect of item No. 2 and 3. The appeal filed by the defendants 2 to 5 was allowed and the suit was dismissed in its entirety by the First Appellate Court. Aggrieved by the same, the plaintiff is before this Court.
3. According to the appellant/Plaintiff, the suit property was an ancestral property and he has been in possession and enjoyment of the same for several decades and prescribed title by adverse possession. It was claimed by the plaintiff that in the year 1957, the first defendant attempted to claim title over the suit property by claiming that he had purchased the suit property from Ramasamy Udayar. The said Ramasamy Udayar said to have taken paper delivery of the suit property with
Possession as a caretaker on behalf of the owner does not amount to adverse possession, and the plaintiff must prove continuous and uninterrupted possession for the statutory period to claim prescrip....
A plaintiff seeking a permanent injunction must prove both title and settled possession, failing which the claim may be dismissed.
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....
Claim of adverse possession requires open, continuous possession with knowledge to the rightful owner. Plaintiffs failed to provide sufficient evidence, resulting in dismissal.
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.
Long possession without clear evidence of hostile intent does not equate to adverse possession, and permissive possession cannot turn adverse without communication of hostility.
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
