Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
K.GOVINDARAJAN THILAKAVADI
N. G. Suresh – Appellant
Versus
Ramadoss Chettiar – Respondent
JUDGMENT :
K.GOVINDARAJAN THILAKAVADI, J.
1. The above second appeal arises out of the judgment and decree dated 31.07.2023 made in A.S.No.24 of 2023 on the file of Sub Court, Sirkali, confirming the judgment and decree dated 25.10.2021 made in O.S.No.261 of 2012 on the file of the District Munsif Court, Sirkali
2.The case of the plaintiff is that the suit 'A' schedule property situated in S.Nos.35/2 and 35/1, was purchased by the plaintiff by virtue of a registered sale deed dated 14.07.1983. The plaintiff is in possession and enjoyment of the suit property from the date of purchase. The plaintiff is also possessing other properties adjacent to the suit property. The plaintiff, in order to prevent cattle and men from entering into the lands, has fenced the suit property and other properties and enjoying the same for the past 29 years. The defendant is having small extent of land on the western side of the suit property. While so, the defendants made attempts to survey the lands, with an intention to remove the above fence. Hence, the plaintiff issued a legal notice on 27.10.2012 questioning the same. On 10.12.2012 again the defendants attempted to remove the fence and encroach upon t
The plaintiff's long possession and evidence of encroachment warranted relief despite the absence of a title declaration, while the defendant's claims were unsubstantiated.
In property disputes, discrepancies between title deeds and TSLR reports favor the registered dimensions in determining ownership and encroachment, with physical possession reports being pivotal.
The main legal point established in the judgment is the reliance on the Advocate Commissioner's report to determine the extent of encroachment and ownership of the disputed property.
The main legal point established in the judgment is the reliance on evidence such as the Advocate Commissioner's report, sale-deeds, and the FMB sketch to confirm encroachment and shortage of land, a....
[The court established that the burden of proof lies on the defendant to substantiate claims of ownership or tenancy, and failure to do so, coupled with admissions against interest, can lead to a jud....
Ownership must be proven through title documentation; mere possession does not grant rights against true ownership. Legal title supersedes claims of adverse possession without sufficient proof.
The plaintiff must establish proof of absolute ownership and encroachment to succeed in property disputes, with evidence discrepancies adversely affecting claims.
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
