Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
P.DHANABAL
Mohana Kumari W/o Selvakumar – Appellant
Versus
Manjula W/o Wilson – Respondent
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. introduction of the appeal against earlier decrees. (Para 1 , 2) |
| 2. suit filed for declaration of ownership contested by defendants. (Para 3 , 5) |
| 3. argument presented regarding the need for possession claims. (Para 10 , 13) |
| 4. courts' findings on possession and title inadequacies. (Para 12 , 18) |
| 5. final judgment to allow the second appeal. (Para 29 , 30) |
JUDGMENT :
P. DHANABAL, J.
1. This Second Appeal has been preferred by the second defendant, against the judgment and decree of dismissal passed by the Subordinate Court, Thiruvarur in A.S.No.20 of 2013, dated 09.01.2015, wherein the appellant and the second respondent herein have filed the said First Appeal (A.S.No.20 of 2013) as against the judgment and decree passed by the trial Court (District Munsif Court), Thiruvarur in O.S.No.27 of 2012, in partly decreeing the suit and the first appellate Court had dismissed the First Appeal (Appeal Suit No.20 of 2013) filed by the defendants, against which, the present Second Appeal has been preferred by the second defendant.
2. For the sake of convenience and brevity, the parties referred to in this appeal, will be referred as per their rank in the trial Court.
3. The appellan
A declaration of property ownership requires establishing possession; without it, claims regarding related deeds are insufficient.
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.
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.
A suit for possession must include a declaration of title when there is a dispute over ownership; mere possession cannot support recovery claims.
The main legal point established in the judgment is that possession is a good title against anyone who cannot show a better title. The court emphasized the importance of long possession and the burde....
The distinction between judgment in rem and judgment in personam, and the binding nature of judgment in rem on anyone claiming interest in the property.
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
