THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
P.B.BALAJI, J.
T.S. Krishnamoorthy – Appellant
Versus
J. Gopalakrishnan – Respondent
A.S. No. 543 of 2025, C.M.P. No. 8493 of 2025
Decided On : 06-02-2026
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. trial court's findings evaluated. (Para 8 , 10) |
JUDGMENT :
P.B. BALAJI, J.
1. The plaintiff, whose suit in O.S.No.13520 of 2010 for declaration of title, possession, permanent injunction and mesne profits came to be dismissed after trial, is the appellant.
2. Pleadings:
The plaint averments in brief:
(a) The plaintiff is the owner of the suit property, Plot No.13, Survey No.257, Velacherry Village, measuring 2400 sq.ft. It forms part of an approved layout in D.D.T.P.221 of 75, originally named as Sri Ganesh Nagar, Velacherry. The plaintiff purchased the suit property under a registered sale deed dated 21.07.1978 from the original owner, R.Shanmugam, represented by his duty constituted power of attorney agent, one C.Krishnamoorthy. The plaintiff has been in possession and enjoyment ever since the purchase. He has also put up a thatched shed in the suit property. However, when he received the original sale deed from the Sub-Registrar's office, he found that the plan, showing the approved layout was not annexed to the sale deed.
(b) The plaintiff contacted the power agent, C.Krishnamoorthy and demanded for a copy of the approved layout plan. The power agent, C.Krishnamoorthy provided the same, based on which, the plaintiff applied for building plan approval to the Corporation of Madras and approval was also granted in P.P.No.C15/413/79 dated 29.12.1979. However, for want of funds and family circumstances, the plaintiff could not put up construction. The plaintiff also obtained separate patta in his name from the Tahsildar vide Patta No.316 dated 24.02.1983. The plaintiff, in fact, rented the thatched shed to one M.Subramanian @ Mani on 04.06.1983. The plaintiff was also paying land tax for the suit property. In 1985, there was a threat of interference to the plaintiff's possession by one M.Balasubramanian and hence, the plaintiff filed a suit before the City Civil Court in O.S.No.7045 of 1985. The suit was decreed on 12.11.1986.
(c) On 14.08.1988, the plaintiff also lodged a complaint with the Inspector of Police, Velacherry against the said M.Balasubramanian and one Prabakaran to thwart their attempts to disturb the plaintiff's peaceful and enjoyment of the suit property. The plaintiff also wrote to the Sub-Registrar and objected to any registration of the suit property, which belongs to the plaintiff, vide objection petition dated 16.09.1989. Taking advantage of the plaintiff residing away from the suit property, some third parties, without the knowledge and consent of the plaintiff, attempted to trespass into the suit property. However, all such attempts were interrupted with the help of the local police on the complaint made by the plaintiff. The plaintiff has been continuously vigilant in protecting his right and possession over the suit property.
(d) In the first week of April 2004, he however found that some preparations have been made for commencing building work and on enquiry, the plaintiff came to know that one R.Hemanathan, power agent of the 1st defendant was attempting to put up construction on behalf of the 1st defendant. The plaintiff informed the power agent that he is the owner of the suit property and all further construction works were stopped immediately. When the plaintiff again visited the suit property on 09.05.2004, he found that a small building measuring 15' x 10' had been put up and construction was incomplete. The plaintiff again approached the police authorities and also made search at the Sub-Registrar's Office at Saidapet. The plaintiff then came to know that the 1st defendant, relying on a dismissal of a suit in O.S.No.2297 of 2000 on the file of the XIV Assistant City Civil Court, Chennai, on 04.03.2004 and relying on a sale deed dated 29.06.1990 executed by none else than Balasubramanian, the defendant in O.S.No.7045 of 1985, was claiming right. The sale in favour of the 1st defendant is based on a fraudulent suit in O.S.No.9641 of 1988, where a decree was obtained on 30.11.1988 by pla
The plaintiff's earlier purchase and established possession outweigh subsequent claims of fraudulent title by defendants, affirming property rights under valid documentation.
Appellate courts can reverse trial court decisions if there's a clear misinterpretation of law or evidence, particularly concerning property title and possession.
Plaintiffs must establish the identity of the property to succeed in a suit for declaration of title and permanent injunction.
Login now and unlock free premium legal research
Login to SupremeToday AI and access free legal analysis, AI highlights, and smart tools.
Login
now!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
Copyright © 2023 Vikas Info Solution Pvt Ltd. All Rights Reserved.